Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Paul. I grant you that the dipole is purely hypothesised.  What's not theory is that there are charge properties to the electron and proton.  None to the photon and the neutron.  That does not make the proton or the neutron a dipole - nor does it necessarily make the proton and the electron a monopole.  But that they've got this property is unarguable.  My question is this.  IF a particle had zero charge, or neutral, - would that not be similar in nature to a magnet?  A magnet has NO charge but inherently has two distinct charges.  And then consider this.  If the charge in the magnet is defined by Faraday's Lines of Force - then the north is distinct from the south - only in relation to whether the force is extruding or intruding the material of the magnet - respectively.  Effectively it's monodirectional - or, to put it another way - it has a single justification.  But that's a 'field effect'.  How does one then isolate a single charge in a particle?  Or does it simply have a predominantly negative charge? And somehow then all such particles are composites of multiple charges - rather like a boson?  Or.  Is an electron or even a proton - a kind of isolated monopole?  Even if we were to establish this much it would be pure speculation.

This is why I feel that an analysis of the actual properties of the 'field' needs to first be made to determine what, if anything, would be the nature of the particle.  That way - instead of wildly pointing to surface skin effects, or longitudinal waves or not - we've at least got the substance of the the field established. 

There's lots can be shown in a field - that's empirically evident.  To claim the same properties of the field in each and every particle is then quite easy.  For instance.  A field appears to orbit, it appears to belong to the material body of the magnet itself.  It appears to have a defined space in which is can operate.  It appears to have a finite and quantifiable force.  It's north pole repels other north poles and it's south repels other souths.  Likewise - the north and south of magnets attract.  Provided nothing physically prevents them - and provided these magnets are close enough - they'll attach - one magnet to another.

Everything I've written here - then substitute the field for the particle.  The particle would orbit and appears to belong to the magnet itself.  It orbits in a defined space.  It's charge properties also appear to obey the laws of charge.  In as much as they appear to join up rather than remain at rest or apart - the implication is that the particle would prefer to amalgamate in a field. Therefore, being magnetic dipoles the attachement would north to south or head to toe.  That would result in a string which would then align in terms of Faraday's Lines of Force.  And so on.  Boring simple obvious facts.  It doesn't need a rocket scientist to wrap his mind around that lot.  And it may be right?  At least, if it's pure speculation - it's also based on what is macroscopically verifiable.   

The hypothetical model I build in my minds eye, is one of a literal "sea" of energy occupying all of space, from which "matter" itself, and all known forms of "energy" both emerge and return to after a given amount of entropy has occurred. I perceive a universe where the concept of "matter" is somewhat of a misnomer, as I perceive what we designate "matter" as being confined discreet packets of energy. Loner stated a "standing wave"... I guess suitable for conceptual understanding though something doesn't seem quite right. My perception is of moving flowing energy fields, whose angles/vectors of flow combined with quantity/specific frequency determine the various observable field effects. It is constantly both creating and absorbing matter.

There's nothing wrong here Paul.  Nice stuff.  But why should matter be discreet - and what is energy?  And flowing fields of WHAT?  Your vision begs more questions.  Nothing wrong - but we could skirt this forever - first proposing this and then proposing the next thing.  Surely it needs to be based on something that - in its essense is, at least, verifiable.

Consider a bathtub full of water in which a little quantity of dye is added, also in which you swirl your hand through the water. You then observe static areas, areas of definite rhythm (oscillation), areas of complex motional interaction (swirls, eddies, etc.), and areas of constant flow (linear). All these effects are visible from just ONE substance, with but a simple action applied.

If NO dye is added, you see but the obvious surface effects or strong effects. You could logically state that these are the ONLY evidential effects. In this scenario, the dye provides the ability to observe and quantify that which is hidden from observation. 

The "dye" in science is the ability to measure. Yet our measuring instruments for the extremely small have resolutions that are relatively large, or in certain cases even dubious. I cannot remember who it was, but one scientists working with a particle accelerator gave essentially this description "It is similar to dropping a watch from the top of the empire building, then guessing at what function the pieces you find at the bottom performed." Concerning our best microscope, how many electrons must be reflected before a picture can even be displayed? (IE what is the resolution)

Yet we speak with confident certainty of sizes we cannot measure, of conceptual objects far too small for even our artificial senses let alone our gross senses to even detect with absolute certainty. We, as a being, tend to speak confidently out of arrogance and not definitive knowledge or QUALIFIABLE proof. Let alone FALSIFIABLE proof when considering the micro or the macro scales of reference.

Understand that until evidence to the contrary is provided or discovered, I consider our viewpoint qualifiably equal and therefore equal in possibility or probability.

Can't quarrel with the last part of this post Paul.  But that deduction by inference.  I do beg to propose that it's reasonable to infer the microscopic from the macroscopic - as I've referenced with the magnetic field.

Anyway.  It's all food for thought.

Regards,
Rosemary

[pauldude000]

"There's nothing wrong here Paul.  Nice stuff.  But why should matter be discreet - and what is energy?  And flowing fields of WHAT?  Your vision begs more questions.  Nothing wrong - but we could skirt this forever - first proposing this and then proposing the next thing.  Surely it needs to be based on something that - in its essense is, at least, verifiable."

Typo.... discrete, and not discreet, as in "individually distinct"... Good catch, I completely missed that one.

Good questions:

The term "Energy" is used with the same abstract meaning as is used to describe a photon as a discrete packet of "energy". I know the term as used is vague at best, but it cannot be helped. Energy is used in my post to refer to individual quantized packets of the ultimately basic building blocks of both what we determine as "particles", as "photons"  and also as "fields". Therefore when referencing any measurable effect, you can look at the super-macro, macro, micro, or sub-micro, and ultimately be referencing the same "stuff" as being the material connecting all visible and measurable effects. Technically, due to scale of reference, both my conception and yours could be true at the same time, as I am looking at the problem using a different scale of reference.

The verification statement you made is absolutely true. But as you said, the macro tends to describes the micro.... which is evidence by inference. Beyond a certain point where accurate measurement fails, and direct observation is impossible, inference is the only tool available. Either by studying the comparably quite large and applying the concepts gleaned to the quite small, or through logical chains (if this is true then this HAS to be true as well).

Yet, considering this, no theory about such is directly verifiable, and all utilize inference as both a base for logical discernment and for evidential qualification. Not one person has ever directly measured an electron. Not for mass, volume, or any other base physical aspect as every single aspect you can mention is far too small to be detected on an individual level. Inference however allows the conceptual method for measurement, measuring these things through secondary means. Even the charge value of an electron is assumed, as it was given an arbitrary charge quantity initially to create a base for comparison.

The question naturally follows, as you quite well asked, "where do we stop"?

Well, if direct measurement is the criteria, then truthfully we all must throw away the proverbial notebooks and go back to Newton for a refresher.

If direct inference is the criteria, then we can ride this logical train to the last stop.

If indirect inference is allowed, then we can all go to Escher land. (Personally I'll get off the train at this point.)

A logical chain is direct inference.... so therefore how much of your own theory infers logically from the action, interaction, and behavior of something else?

The fact that I put it forth as mere speculation or at best a working hypothesis is due to the fact that the concept was derived logically by inference, as was yours.

That is also why I referred earlier to the fact that I consider both of our concepts as being equal in both possibility and probability, simply because neither concept can provide or be proven by direct measurable reference.

EDIT ADDED:

By "indirect inference" I refer to things which infer another, but not considerable as directly.

Pure abstract mathematics not actively measuring or quantifying real but instead imagined effects (speculative mathematics) for example can infer the existence of a thing that does not exist, as the mathematical outcome may be real, but has to be interpretively applied to reality by the mathematician and can therefore easily be a misinterpretation.

Philosophical, religious, and personal bias based inferences are all examples of what I mean as "indirect inference". There are no measurable or quantifiable reference basis for logical physical assumptions to be made.

Yet many choose pick and choose what defines "inference" often classifying "indirect inference" as "inference", and vice-versa. If quantification and qualification by inference is disallowed, then science itself would in effect be "knocked back to the stone age".

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

Refresher for us science geeks: 

The progression of logical thought starts with the lowly observation, either concrete or abstract.

Said observers knowledge leads to applicable sets of base postulates.

Speculation and contemplation combine with the postulates to form a conditional hypothesis.

The hypothesis is then tentatively measured by the observer and otherwise tested against the evidence to become a theory.

Said theory undergoes exhaustive peer testing against known reality, and if it works in all cases or it works without fail in certain cases, it assumes the mantle of either Law or Conditional Law respectively.

Sounds good doesn't it? Logical, tidy, effective.

How guaranteed is a law?

It is not logically any better than the base postulates, which HAVE to be true for anything based upon them to be true.

A postulate by definition is an assumption or claim (IE an assertion also by definition.)

Ouch.

Paul Andrulis