The B was easy; d/dt took a while
December 8, 2004 1:21 PM   Subscribe

The universe in just two symbols. The rest, as they say, is details. No wonder the "Physics Establishment" is trying to keep this quiet. The author, having conquered the universe in general, tackles poetry, as well.
posted by Wolfdog (20 comments total)
fyi: a google cache is always helpful with geocities sites.
posted by moonbird at 1:24 PM on December 8, 2004

Thanks, I wish I had time to read all of that. Glorious. Linking E=MC^2 to adding heat to a cup of tea. Seriously.
posted by swordfishtrombones at 1:29 PM on December 8, 2004

I'll see your two-symbol universe and raise you a PHYLISOPHICAL JOURNEY INTO HUMANITY.
posted by MrMoonPie at 1:30 PM on December 8, 2004

To save everyone time getting to the "two symbols" part, here it is:

If you wish to wax philosophical about this, you could consider this: The ultimate nature of the universe is contained in just two symbols. One is a thing – the magnetic field:


and the other is a process – time variation (NOT time):


That's it. That's all. The Theory of Everything!

posted by languagehat at 1:31 PM on December 8, 2004

Rule #3 of Metafilter: No Geocities sites.
posted by Plinko at 1:40 PM on December 8, 2004

The problem with these overly reductive arguments is that there really isn't an "ultimate nature of the universe" just another "ultimate interpretation of the ultimate nature of the universe".

Its not a bad take (thanks moonbird, for the cache link) but that's all it is, another take on explaining everything in one nice and neat little package.

On Preview: What Plinko said.
posted by fenriq at 1:41 PM on December 8, 2004


Nice post. I wonder if he hangs out with Archimedes Plutonium?
posted by turbodog at 1:45 PM on December 8, 2004

Proof By Assertion R Us. Phew.

This fundamental argument seems to be that magnetism is a mass, it's not energy per se. He says that it is like gravitation in that way. But even from a pure layman's standpoint, this appears to be total bunk.

He claims that Einstein says that mass and energy are the same thing (which is sort of true, one can be converted into the other).... and then goes off gallivanting around showing that since energy is mass, storing energy in things like solenoids makes them more massive. (They may ultimately be the same thing, dude, but there's a conversion process, it doesn't just magically happen whenever you want it to.)

It's like arguing that because ice and water vapor can be turned into one another, that all clouds are floating ice, whatever their temperature.

Now, I'm not sure we actually understand how magnetism works, how it is carried. It may work differently than we think. But he appears completely incapable of proving any such thing.
posted by Malor at 1:53 PM on December 8, 2004

yes, it appears to be a stretch (if not a strain) but it's an entertaining read in that quirky sort of way.

and i'll second the motion about geocities in general. not really the best idea. but nice try.
posted by moonbird at 1:57 PM on December 8, 2004

Sorry about the geocities link; I didn't realize how much of a faux pas that was. Thank you for providing the cached version. But I surely do enjoy reading the work of a good crank, and this guy is it in spades.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:16 PM on December 8, 2004

Nothing wrong with exposing a crank to MeFi's tender mercies.
posted by fenriq at 2:40 PM on December 8, 2004

A shame; some of those pictures are pretty. For the record, chalk up magnetism in the column labeled understood. However, I believe astronomers still have unanswered questions about the existence and cause of significant (i.e. greater than a few microgauss) extragalactic magnetic fields. These concerns are being probed by ultra-high energy cosmic ray studies right now. Any experts listening and care to clarify?
posted by fatllama at 2:56 PM on December 8, 2004

As an idot about theoretical physics, this looks to me much like (a deluded laymans attempt at) what was being discussed yesterday in this thread about String Theory. The whole bit re: Bosons (and Fermions) and the "particles" of quantum gravity.

Please correct me. :-)
posted by C.Batt at 2:56 PM on December 8, 2004

So, B + (d/dt) = Sorry, this site is temporarily unavailable!
posted by fletchmuy at 3:15 PM on December 8, 2004

C.Batt - While most of what he says it at least coherent (sections III and IV are so correct they must have been lifted from a textbook), a lot of it is misuse of jargon. He's got one significant point correct: magnetic fields store energy and therefore in principle exert (a small amount of) gravitation under General Relativity. The first scientist quoted in section XVII tells him this. Note that this has nothing to do with gravitomagnetism which is (roughly) extra gravitation produced by spinning masses.

I guess it is sometimes hard to discern good science from bad, but the following gems are good clues:
  • Whether or not this view is expressible in mathematical language remains to be seen.
  • Now, what is a photon at rest? We do not know, but we can say that it is a puff of electromagnetic energy, and nothing else. Therefore, if this puff is a mass, magnetic field is a mass.
  • Mass + time variation -> Energy
  • Since magnetic field has no "anti" counterpart, could magnetic mass be a bridge between matter and antimatter?
Then again, there is this spark of lucidity:

Only if you are paying close attention do you realize that they are not actually saying anything meaningful – just complete nonsense.
posted by fatllama at 3:29 PM on December 8, 2004

Ah, so my problem has always been forgetting to carry the d over the dt whenever I'm adding B? Shit, all this time I've had it completely univ-ass backwards.
posted by Peter H at 3:47 PM on December 8, 2004

I've been trying to live by this equation for some time. To anyone else doing the same, I recommend adding a constant (+C) to help keep your feet on the ground.
posted by Prince Nez at 7:43 PM on December 8, 2004

For anyone interested in alternate theories to electromagnetism check this site out.

A good source for tons of links to all sorts of kooky, cranky, and plain weird pages.
posted by Vicarious at 1:10 AM on December 9, 2004

Wow, that was painful to read.
posted by vernondalhart at 1:33 AM on December 9, 2004

Vicarious: Very interesting link - lots of "reading and exclaiming 'what the hell?'" opportunities there...
posted by FormlessOne at 4:16 PM on December 9, 2004

« Older Congressional Hearing on Ohio Voting...   |   Easing the Spring Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments