LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhy must the wavefunction describing matterwave necessarily be a complex function??
i'm a little skeptic about the concept of matterwave--though numerous experiments have shown that it indeed matches with the the currently accepted theory...
June 2nd, 2011, 02:22 PM
Why must the wavefunction describing matterwave necessarily be a complex function??
i'm a little skeptic about the concept of matterwave--though numerous experiments have shown that it indeed matches with the the currently accepted theory...
June 2nd, 2011, 02:32 PM
It doesn't "have to be" a complex function. But that is the way the theory is formulated. That theory seems to do a good job of explaining what is actually observed in nature.Originally Posted by newspaper
Matching theory is a tautology. What counts is the degree to which the theory matches experiment.
If you have a better theory, then produce it, and show that it matches experiment better than does the existing model. That is the crux of theoretical research.
June 2nd, 2011, 02:47 PM
Its giving an opertunety to the multy waves that going back and forth in time to erase the mater like antimater
June 2nd, 2011, 02:51 PM
Do not hesitate to exhibit a proof that the matter is NOT waves. At the righ scale of analysis, say an electron.
Do not hesitate to exhibit the proof that the Laue diffractograms with electrons or neutrons are just mistakes by the experimenters.
June 2nd, 2011, 02:53 PM
But the schrodinger time dependent equation demands the solution to be a complex quantities...It doesn't "have to be" a complex function. But that is the way the theory is formulated.
and if the wavefunction is not necessarily a complex function then what might be a possible difference between the ordinary wave and the matterwave...
totally agreeMatching theory is a tautology. What counts is the degree to which the theory matches experiment.
If you have a better theory, then produce it, and show that it matches experiment better than does the existing model. That is the crux of theoretical research.
June 2nd, 2011, 02:57 PM
Like I said, that is the way the theory is formulated. If you want something different you need a different formulation -- one that matches experiment.But the schrodinger time dependent equation demands the solution to be a complex quantities...It doesn't "have to be" a complex function. But that is the way the theory is formulated.
Nobody knows what that might be or if it exists.
June 3rd, 2011, 02:54 AM
what does complex function solve...and why is there a complex number in the differential equation of schrodinger time dependent equation....Like I said, that is the way the theory is formulated. If you want something different you need a different formulation -- one that matches experiment.But the schrodinger time dependent equation demands the solution to be a complex quantities...It doesn't "have to be" a complex function. But that is the way the theory is formulated.
Nobody knows what that might be or if it exists.
June 3rd, 2011, 03:06 AM
you seem to be saying something useful.....could you please explain in a little detail....
June 3rd, 2011, 09:12 AM
Answer :
As established by Louis Victor de Broglie in 1924, any quanton that has a mass, has also an intrinsic frequency :.
If your obsession is to defeat Erwin Schrödinger and Broglie, as two competitors to your monopoly, the only way to hide the periodic character of any quanton, is to hide it under the mystic cloak of complexeness. So they did.
As long as the electron interferes only with itself, the period and the wave length to consider are exactly the broglian ones.
But when you have to study the electromagnetic interference with a photon, for instance the Compton diffusion, then the period you must deal with, is the Dirac-Schrödinger one, which is half the broglian one.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23279
Discovered by Schrödinger in 1930, based on the Dirac wave equation of the electron, in 1928, and usually called "Zitterbewegung".
June 3rd, 2011, 10:33 AM
"going back and forth in time"Are you confident in your reasoning? I feel antimatter is not connected with the existence of natural matter. Antimatter, I feel as it is still a mystery, is in a separate dimension of space-time. Moreover, how can normal matter "erase" antimatter? Just a thought :P
June 3rd, 2011, 10:57 AM
but why complexfunction..and i don't understand how it hides....isn't there any specific reason or anything mathematical reasoning....Answer :
As established by Louis Victor de Broglie in 1924, any quanton that has a mass, has also an intrinsic frequency :
the only way to hide the periodic character of any quanton, is to hide it under the mystic cloak of complexeness. So they did.
June 3rd, 2011, 12:12 PM
Had you a course on coherent optics and incoherent optics ?
The interference of an electron with itself is answerable to coherent optics.
The Bragg diffraction of an electron on a crystalline lattice, is answerable to coherent optics.
So on.
What confuses you, is that they did not teach you the main point :
One photon has one absorber, converges on one absorber.
One travelling electron has one physical absorber, converges on one absorber. Only one.
The condition they do not teach you until they teach you the Feynman paths integrals, is the Fermat condition : all the real paths arrive at the absorber with the same phase, plus or minus an integer nomber of periods. Exactly as light does, for the same reasons.
So one can evaluate the maximum diameter of the Fermat's spindle between the emitter and the absorber, plus the sum of the radius of the emitting reaction and the absorbing reaction.
June 3rd, 2011, 02:23 PM
It's complex because that's what works. If you're looking for a why, that's philosophy, not science.but why complexfunction..and i don't understand how it hides....isn't there any specific reason or anything mathematical reasoning....Answer :
As established by Louis Victor de Broglie in 1924, any quanton that has a mass, has also an intrinsic frequency :
the only way to hide the periodic character of any quanton, is to hide it under the mystic cloak of complexeness. So they did.
June 3rd, 2011, 02:40 PM
Said differently, with the same meaning :
"Shut up ! And calculate !"
June 3rd, 2011, 10:36 PM
if i have understood you...you seem to say that there is no specific reason about using complex no......physicists use it not because he understands the equation but because equation agree with an experiments precisely well......It's complex because that's what works. If you're looking for a why, that's philosophy, not science.but why complexfunction..and i don't understand how it hides....isn't there any specific reason or anything mathematical reasoning....Answer :
As established by Louis Victor de Broglie in 1924, any quanton that has a mass, has also an intrinsic frequency :
the only way to hide the periodic character of any quanton, is to hide it under the mystic cloak of complexeness. So they did.
well then this might only give us little success, i believe, it will only bring more and more complication if we only try to fit an equation that agree with an experiments and not knowing what and why we get that equation......and calling the main theme of understanding "The Philosophy"...
newspaper: maybe the complex function is associated with an inherent rotation. See for example mathwsworld along with electromagnetic field and Euler's formula.
Don't be sceptical of "matter waves". Like JC was saying, we really can diffract electrons and neutrons. See neutron diffraction and note this bit: "The first neutron diffraction experiments were carried out in 1945 by Ernest O. Wollan using the Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge".
June 5th, 2011, 02:14 AM
Please be more careful with your statements, Farsight !
That "something" is periodic in any quanton is proved, that this period is intrinsic in any quanton with mass, is proved too. That the electromagnetic frequency, or Dirac-Schrödinger frequency, is twice the broglian one, and intervene in electromagnetics interactions is proved, too.
But nothing experimental proves that this "something" looks like anything we already know in our macroscopic world.
Just accept that we have lots of things to discover, still.
June 5th, 2011, 11:37 PM
No, that's neither what I said, nor what I meant, and I don't appreciate other people putting words in my mouth.Said differently, with the same meaning :
"Shut up ! And calculate !"
The point is, a lot of people come around asking "Why? Why? Why?" as if there should be some ultimate answer, but that's not science. That's not how science works. Science works with What and How and When and Where. Basically, quantifiable things. If you threw away all of the Why, science would still work fine.
That isn't to say it's worthless though. Understanding some of the Why probably helps develop new science, and it's a valid philosophy question, but no one has any ultimate answers.
June 6th, 2011, 04:39 AM
Have you ever heard about groupthink syndrome ?No, that's neither what I said, nor what I meant, and I don't appreciate other people putting words in my mouth.Said differently, with the same meaning :
"Shut up ! And calculate !"
The point is, a lot of people come around asking "Why? Why? Why?" as if there should be some ultimate answer, but that's not science. That's not how science works. Science works with What and How and When and Where. Basically, quantifiable things. If you threw away all of the Why, science would still work fine.
That isn't to say it's worthless though. Understanding some of the Why probably helps develop new science, and it's a valid philosophy question, but no one has any ultimate answers.
For instance there :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
As (wo)man is a social and tribal animal, his/her deliria and mental illnesses are mainly collective and tribal ones. The idiosyncratic deliria are only a small minority.
For instance this one is individual and idiosyncratic : http://thescienceforum.com/viewtopic...r=desc&start=0, but Florian tells you they are a whole tribe in the same believing. And that they are damned genial, damned in advance on their time, damned revolutionary, damned superior...
Here, each time the tribe is cornered in its own contradictions, it yells : "Shut up ! And calculate ! You are just a weirdo if you do'nt believe us !". So where is the technical difficulty to diagnose here a groupthink syndrome ?
June 6th, 2011, 05:41 AM
The commonest instance of group think syndrome on this forum is that of individuals who display the following characteristics:
1) They have little education in the scientific method.
2) They have some exposure to scientific ideas, but usually to a garbled, simplified, incomplete extent that leaves them misunderstanding those ideas.
3) They believe (deeply) that some or other scientific idea is wrong and that they have a clearer insight into the truth.
4) They feel supported in the justice of their position by two things: the self evident fact that science keeps changing its conclusions; the fact that others have also noted that scientists are just brain dead zombies who toe the party line, are afraid to think outside of the box and follow their scientific orthodoxy quite dogmatically.
The second part of point 4 is where the groupthink comes in. If it wasn't quite so sad it would be laughable.
June 6th, 2011, 06:51 AM
Please, do not hesitate to develop your ideas, to precise them, and to make them clear.The commonest instance of group think syndrome on this forum is that of individuals who display the following characteristics:
1) They have little education in the scientific method.
2) They have some exposure to scientific ideas, but usually to a garbled, simplified, incomplete extent that leaves them misunderstanding those ideas.
3) They believe (deeply) that some or other scientific idea is wrong and that they have a clearer insight into the truth.
4) They feel supported in the justice of their position by two things: the self evident fact that science keeps changing its conclusions; the fact that others have also noted that scientists are just brain dead zombies who toe the party line, are afraid to think outside of the box and follow their scientific orthodoxy quite dogmatically.
The second part of point 4 is where the groupthink comes in. If it wasn't quite so sad it would be laughable.
I believe I have precised them quite sufficiently in my last post.
@Lavau, Yes, I know what groupthink is. And no, I feel no need to follow others' examples, or any such thing. My personality (somewhat of a loner) and the anonymity of the internet support this.
The problem is, science is demonstratably about quantification. How much, how many, how long, how hot, etc. Scientists often consider the why to help themselves get a grasp on the equations and to see where to go next, but why isn't strictly a scientific question.
I come to these conclusions based on my own education, and my own ability to reason, not because someone told this to me and I'm merely repeating them.
If you can offer actual evidence that I'm wrong, I might change my mind, but your own arguments are unconvincing. Also, I should point out that relying on the looseness of the English language (or any other language really) doesn't count as evidence. By this, I mean that most discoveries will be billed as "discovered why X does Y" or something, but what they actually mean is that they now have a model of the underlying processes that shows that X should Y, or something similar.
June 7th, 2011, 04:59 AM
When you explore the correspondance of 19th century scientists, say W.R. Hamilton, de Morgan, Clerk Maxwell, Thomson, Clifford, they called themselves as "natural philosophers". This term had no pejorative colour, then.
But now "philosophy" has a pejorative use in the tribe. I still do not know what could be its exact meaning, but I see what is its use.
Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:37 am, you used it for pejoration, to emphasize the frontier between the good and the bad people.
In 1926 and 1927, Niels Bohr used very bad tricks against Erwin Schrödinger (and against Louis de Broglie too, but it is less known), to well establish the frontier between his pack, the winners, and the opponents, mainly Erwin Schrödinger, who had wave equations, and ideas about waves and the properties of the Fourier transform. In their correspondance, you read that they qualified the Schrödinger equation of electronic waves as "disgusting", and they urged to get rid of it. Three generations later, this pack is now hegemonic, holds all the territory.
As in the best known thriller of George Orwell (1984), the winning pack is still manipulating the vocabulary to prevent the students to think out of the groupthink.
See for instance http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...steinberg.html and https://rapidshare.com/files/3540868...nce-Kocsis.pdf : trajectories in, trajectories out, all under subrepticious corpuscularist postulates.
As clinical psychologists, we are now familiar with the psychopathologies generated by some heavy family secrecies.
A not so heavy example is now well known. Do you know the adventures of Tintin ? The Castafiore, her fixation on her jewels, Thompson and Thomson and their odd chinese suits, the captain François de Hadocque, the castle of Moulinsard, the unability of Bianca Castafiore to correctly name the captain Haddock ? The psychoanalyst Serge Tisseron suspected there the handling of a family secrecy, by Hergé. The opening of the biographic archives entirely confirmed that : the grand-mother of Hergé had illigetimate twins, who were largely reared and suited by a countess.
This family secrecy was not a criminal one, and the psychopathology of Hergé was not a very heavy one : just big problems with impossible fatherhood, extreme difficulty in mating with a woman who would be an equal and not a superior, and long times of depression. One sees far worse elsewhere.
And we see far worse here, in the heritage of the winning pack in Copenhagen. The family secrecy is a criminal one, here.
There is a difference between observation and obsession, between contributing and conquering. If you were to appreciate this distinction you would not be lost in the quagmire of misinterpretation. However, the strength of your obsession is such that I see little hope for you.
June 7th, 2011, 06:01 AM
Do you consider it before or after the elimination of the periodic and monochromatic character of its solution ? Before or after the eradication of its creators ?
That is the heart of the matter.
Sure, after the elimination of the periodic nature of any quanton, things become very very obscure. That is the price to pay, to stick within the club.
June 7th, 2011, 07:42 AM
i am just concerned about how complex no "i" come into his equation....Do you consider it before or after the elimination of the periodic and monochromatic character of its solution ? Before or after the eradication of its creators ?
That is the heart of the matter.
i think if we can explain that then other facts will be a little easier...i think
June 7th, 2011, 09:28 AM
Please first explain us what is your technical background in the mathematical treatment of waves and periodic phenomena.
Are you familar with the "Fresnel vector" in electrotechnics of alternative currents ?
Or the use of complex impedances for designing a transformer or an electroacoustic filter, or an active filter ?
Are you familiar with the vibrations in solids or fluids, say the equation of the vibrating string (found by Jean le Rond d'Alembert, 18th century) ? or at least a simple resonator mass-spring ?
Do you know the basis of physical optics, the use of amplitude in coherent optics ?
What was new in 1924 to Louis Victor de Broglie and in 1926 to Erwin Schrödinger, is that, though they did not know what is periodic, nor how it is periodic, this periodicity and undulatory behaviour was above any doubt.
Further, on considerations of mathematical elegance, Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac found an enhanced equation, in 1928. So now, we know that the electron is more than a complex "thing", but a hypercomplex one, with four components. And no more with one intrinsic frequency, but two intrinsic frequencies.
See at http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23279 how the Dirac-Schrödinger intrinsic periodintervenes in the Compton diffusion.
Two of these four components have an orthochronic frequency and orthochronic wave vector, that sounds familiar to you. The two others have a retrochronic frequency, retrochronic wave vector and negative energy, and this sounds very odd to you : we have nothing such in our macroscopic world. Of course, these two kinds of components participate in the transaction between the absorber of the electron, and the emitter of the electron. Nothing such exists in our macroscopic world : the potential quantic absorbers are so many, and so uncontrollable.
June 7th, 2011, 06:12 PM
You're the one making up meanings here. There are two very important points I'm trying to make:When you explore the correspondance of 19th century scientists, say W.R. Hamilton, de Morgan, Clerk Maxwell, Thomson, Clifford, they called themselves as "natural philosophers". This term had no pejorative colour, then.
But now "philosophy" has a pejorative use in the tribe. I still do not know what could be its exact meaning, but I see what is its use.
Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:37 am, you used it for pejoration, to emphasize the frontier between the good and the bad people.
- There is no such thing as a tribe of scientists. This is a common fallacy mostly held by certified cranks with a persecution complex. They feel everyone is allied against them, so they label everyone else as part of some global group that gets together (somehow) to decide what's right or wrong. It simply doesn't exist.
- Philosophy isn't bad, but it isn't science. The scientific method is all about making testable predictions and trying to take down your own theories, then letting other do the same. The more attacks it withstands, the more credible the theory (hint: GR and QED have withstood many such attacks). Philosophy does not make testable predictions (or really any predictions that I know of, but I'm not a philosopher). Again, not bad, just not science.
June 7th, 2011, 07:58 PM
The "Dirac-Schrödinger frequency" may be proved to be twice the deBroglie frequency in your mind, but a solid reference is in order. This "fact" seems to have escaped the attention of much of the physics community as there is no mention of a "Dirac-Schrödinger frequency" (twice the DeBroglie frequency) in Wikipedia (not overly surprising) or in ANY of the following (astonishing if the notion has any merit):Please be more careful with your statements, Farsight !
That "something" is periodic in any quanton is proved, that this period is intrinsic in any quanton with mass, is proved too. That the electromagnetic frequency, or Dirac-Schrödinger frequency, is twice the broglian one, and intervene in electromagnetics interactions is proved, too.
But nothing experimental proves that this "something" looks like anything we already know in our macroscopic world.
Just accept that we have lots of things to discover, still.
The Principles of Quantum Mechanics -- P.A.M. Dirac
Quantum Electrodynamics -- R.P. Feynman
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics -- Bjorken and Drell
Relativistic Quantum Fields -- Bjorken and Drell
Particles Sources and Fields, vols I, III III -- Julian Schwinger
The Quantum Theory of Fields, vols I, II, III -- Steven Weinberg
Photons & Atoms -- Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Jacques Dupont-Roc and Gilbert Grynerg
Atom-Photon-Interactions: Basic Processes and Applications -- Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Jacques Dupont-Roc and Gilbert Grynerg
Quantum Field Theory -- Lewis H. Ryder
Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell -- A. Zee
An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory -- Peskin and Schroeder
Quantum Mechanics -- Messiah
Quantum Mechanics -- P.J.E. Peebles
June 8th, 2011, 02:09 AM
Of course ! You speak about a layer of super-human beings, who have no more anything in common with the remaining of the species.
However, please notice that the Jehovahs Witnesses also are convinced they are a super-human elite.
And the scientologists too, have the same believing.
June 8th, 2011, 02:14 AM
Please do not forget to open your Dirac's, §69.
In the fourth edition, it as at the page 263.
Have a good reading !
June 8th, 2011, 02:19 AM
Again, putting words in my mouth. Where do you get this idea? Scientists are just as human as everyone else. More educated, almost by definition, but still ordinary humans.Of course ! You speak about a layer of super-human beings, who have no more anything in common with the remaining of the species.
However, notice that the Jehovahs Witnesses also are convinced they are a super-human elite.
And the scientologists too, have the same believing.
The idea that scientists are some kind of unified group is completely made up, largely by crackpots looking for a reason why their theories aren't accepted.
June 8th, 2011, 02:34 AM
So again, you use pejorative words, to emphasize the frontier between the good and the bad people. To establish that you belong to the good people, and other are the bad people.Again, putting words in my mouth. Where do you get this idea? Scientists are just as human as everyone else. More educated, almost by definition, but still ordinary humans.Of course ! You speak about a layer of super-human beings, who have no more anything in common with the remaining of the species.
However, notice that the Jehovahs Witnesses also are convinced they are a super-human elite.
And the scientologists too, have the same believing.
The idea that scientists are some kind of unified group is completely made up, largely by crackpots looking for a reason why their theories aren't accepted.
JC - You seem to be missing his point rather badly, and you're making some comments which appear to the rest of us to be quite mad.
June 8th, 2011, 04:07 AM
This appears to be what is known a zitterbewegung, which I see you mentioned earlier. That is, of course discussed in several texts, but nowhere under the term "Dirac-Schrodinger frequency", in the context of the solution of the Dirac equation for a relativistic free electron.Please do not forget to open your Dirac's, §69.
In the fourth edition, it as at the page 263.
Have a good reading !
But how can you say that it is "proved" when it has never been observed, and as Dirac intimates cannot be observed directly ? The basic idea is that the instantaneous speed of an electron is always +/- c, but the average velocity over an interval is, of course, much less.
June 8th, 2011, 05:57 AM
These people claim to have observed some ersatz of Zitterbewegung :This appears to be what is known a zitterbewegung, which I see you mentioned earlier. That is, of course discussed in several texts, but nowhere under the term "Dirac-Schrodinger frequency", in the context of the solution of the Dirac equation for a relativistic free electron.Please do not forget to open your Dirac's, §69.
In the fourth edition, it as at the page 263.
Have a good reading !
But how can you say that it is "proved" when it has never been observed, and as Dirac intimates cannot be observed directly ? The basic idea is that the instantaneous speed of an electron is always +/- c, but the average velocity over an interval is, of course, much less.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v94/i20/e206801
http://www.azom.com/news.aspx?newsID=20262
Of course any direct observation of the real frequency of real Zitterbewegung of an electron, or worse a nucleon, remains beyond our reach.
But the consequences are not beyond our reach.
Direct observations of Broglian frequency were beyond their reach in 1924, but the consequences, such as interferences, and diffractograms on crystals were soon proved.
June 8th, 2011, 06:01 AM
undergraduate 2nd yearPlease first explain us what is your technical background in the mathematical treatment of waves and periodic phenomena.
how would you derive schrodinger equation from the principle of matterwave alone and total energy....
remember, de broglie only gives us the postulate of the wavelength of matterwave and does not give us any intuitive idea of what matterwave really is...
please donot give me the link to wikipedia...that's the way how we do it in our lectures....
i am interested in how you come to conclusion with complex no. in his equation...
June 8th, 2011, 07:04 AM
Do not trust what the enemies of Broglie say on his work. Read it directly :undergraduate 2nd yearPlease first explain us what is your technical background in the mathematical treatment of waves and periodic phenomena.
how would you derive schrodinger equation from the principle of matterwave alone and total energy....
remember, de broglie only gives us the postulate of the wavelength of matterwave and does not give us any intuitive idea of what matterwave really is...
please donot give me the link to wikipedia...that's the way how we do it in our lectures....
i am interested in how you come to conclusion with complex no. in his equation...
http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs...l-00006807.pdf
Of course, as in any other authors, there were contradictions in his mind.
He did the main innovation, to postulate the unification of Planck law and Einstein law in the broglian intrinsic frequency :.
Strictly relativist, Broglie examined the frequency seen by a fix observer, when an electron has the velocity v. So he deduced the theorem of harmony of phases, and the phase velocity V :
Of course, then he could deduce the wave length, for a given velocity:(in the non-relativistic approximation).
Fully relativistic form :
Using the momentum :
You obtain the relativistic relation of Broglie :
Pity, Broglie still trusted the scholar, familiar and alas macroscopic notions of spatial coordinates, position, corpuscle... The best way to shoot bullets in his own feet.
Louis de Broglie [failed to notice](1) that his theorem of Harmony of phases implied that in the electron frame, the phase velocity is infinite. So in all its spatial extension, the electron is everywhere in phase with itself. It can never become "very small" (as it is hegemonically taught).
You think that the two components of a complex quantity are too much for an electron wave. But Dirac has shown that it is too less in reality. An electron is a hypercomplex thing, with four components in its waves. Simply the Dirac equation came two years after the Schrödinger equation. Less known, less taught, more difficult in its algebraic hypercomplex formalism.
For any periodic and sinusoïdal phenomenon, the derivation by time is in quadrature with the function. Mathematically, the most easy way to handle it is to treat the writing as the real part of a complex exponent :
In french, our page of course is there, begun by Bernard Schaeffer, and continued by me :
http://deonto-ethics.org/mediawiki/i...nde_de_Broglie
See also :
http://deonto-ethics.org/mediawiki/i...hr%C3%B6dinger (all by Bernard Schaeffer, and I do not agree on everything).
No translation in english was done, up to day.
Corrected, 9 june :
spatial coordinates.
(1) Er... False. You can see in his Nobel lecture that he noticed it, and used it.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ie-lecture.pdf
Newspaper, no-one seems to be answering your original question, but are all going off in their own preferred topical directions.
I assume you know that most of QM is a totally abstract mathematical model which gives very good results for some quantities. We can get very accurate predictions of probability by squaring and taking the absolute of certain values.
Now, absolute value means we can have ( before taking absolute value ) positive and negative values. Which means that before squaring, to get negative values, we must have had complex values. In effect, the complex values are there for consistency.
I hope I understood your question correctly and have provided some insight.
June 8th, 2011, 01:31 PM
its the prtical that gose back in time and erase the parical that gose forward in time (its positive and negative that gets from the complex equation). thanks
June 8th, 2011, 01:40 PM
an opertunaty for anther dimention
June 8th, 2011, 02:14 PM
Well said.
This situation of super-abstract mathematical phenomenology comes by not-thinking the huge difference between our macroscopic scale, and the scale of competence of the microphysics.
The hermitian square is just good for statistically predicting what could absorb an absorber IF an absorber was somewhere, and was engaged in the handshake for the transfer of a quanton. So the microphysical phenomena are all hiden under the carpet. Even their existence is rejected by the pack, with the despising "It is philosophy ! Not science !".
Since Niels Bohr who regressed to the animist age, and has put his big macroscopic nose and feet in the middle of the microphysic pictures, with his pack with him, we have not at all the same idea of science.
June 8th, 2011, 04:46 PM
If you're saying I'm trying to separate the crackpots from everyone else, it's roughly true. I don't think of them as bad people though, just horribly misguided or possibly mentally ill.So again, you use pejorative words, to emphasize the frontier between the good and the bad people. To establish that you belong to the good people, and other are the bad people.
There are numerous common symptoms such people exhibit, such as a persecution complex, an inability to accept criticism and/pr learn from their mistakes, etc. These are actually fairly well documented (though often in humorous contexts). Its consistency is what makes me think of it as (possibly) a mental illness.
If you feel I am exhibiting any of these symptoms, feel free to point it out, but I'll be the first to admit that I make mistakes or don't know the answer to a question, and am happy to learn new things.
Anyway, as MigL said, this is off topic.
June 8th, 2011, 05:41 PM
Please stop these personal attacks, please return to the subject : waves of fermions, and how they are mis-taught.
Your obsession of precedence over me, is not a so good idea.
June 8th, 2011, 06:34 PM
What, specifically, is being mis-taught and where (with references) ? Why is it wrong -- i.e. does it produce incorrect predictions or simply present an interpretation of quantum mechanics that you don't like ?
What do you consider to be a proper presentation ?
How is it different from the presentation in standard texts ?
Show, with appropriate references or complete arguments that your approach is valid, that is, mathematically consistent and in agreement with experimental data.
June 9th, 2011, 01:47 AM
Also, I'm confused as to how you are interpreting my words as a personal attack or why you think I'm obsessing about anything much less trying to take precedence over you.
June 9th, 2011, 04:13 AM
First we have to access on both sides to the same handbooks, to discuss their tricks and failures.What, specifically, is being mis-taught and where (with references) ? Why is it wrong -- i.e. does it produce incorrect predictions or simply present an interpretation of quantum mechanics that you don't like ?
What do you consider to be a proper presentation ?
How is it different from the presentation in standard texts ?
Show, with appropriate references or complete arguments that your approach is valid, that is, mathematically consistent and in agreement with experimental data.
If I detail to you the tricks in the Cohen-Tannoudji, Laloe and Diu, it does not make sense to you : it is in french. And the Messiah, too.
Here in english I have the Greiner, or the old Linus Pauling and E. Bright Wilson, Jr. (Thanks to Dover).
Maybe you have an english version of the Landau and Lifchitz, Mir editions.
Maybe it will be enough to examine the last volume of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, where the main failures in reasoning are obvious, too.
Or pages in the english Wiikipedia. I use the french version as a quarry for blunders, for the collection of howlers.
it seems...
i am just begining to think why we donot have some concrete logic behind it.....
did schrodinger not explain us that clearly about why he used complex no?....i think i must refer to his original papers now.....
i am just too curious to know much about schrodinger equation....
June 9th, 2011, 11:18 AM
do you have an english version of this copy...Do not trust what the enemies of Broglie say on his work. Read it directly :undergraduate 2nd yearPlease first explain us what is your technical background in the mathematical treatment of waves and periodic phenomena.
how would you derive schrodinger equation from the principle of matterwave alone and total energy....
remember, de broglie only gives us the postulate of the wavelength of matterwave and does not give us any intuitive idea of what matterwave really is...
please donot give me the link to wikipedia...that's the way how we do it in our lectures....
i am interested in how you come to conclusion with complex no. in his equation...
http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs...l-00006807.pdf
June 9th, 2011, 12:51 PM
If such translation had ever existed, the story of Physics would be very different.do you have an english version of this copy...Do not trust what the enemies of Broglie say on his work. Read it directly :undergraduate 2nd yearPlease first explain us what is your technical background in the mathematical treatment of waves and periodic phenomena.
how would you derive schrodinger equation from the principle of matterwave alone and total energy....
remember, de broglie only gives us the postulate of the wavelength of matterwave and does not give us any intuitive idea of what matterwave really is...
please donot give me the link to wikipedia...that's the way how we do it in our lectures....
i am interested in how you come to conclusion with complex no. in his equation...
http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs...l-00006807.pdf
Richard Feynman would not have to reinvent the wheel, with his integrals of paths.
John Cramer would have at hand the physical mechanism for the handshakes between emitters and absorbers of any quantons, beginning by the photon...
Richard Feynman would not teach "Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics" : he had been close of the target, but changed his way just before hitting it.
If it is not translated into american, american physicists think it does not exist at all.
But maybe at the site of the Nobel comittee, you should have a translation of the lecture of Louis de Broglie, for his prize.
Hit ! http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ie-lecture.pdf
Do not read the only conclusion (duality), skipping the main, but please insist on how he progressed, and through what.
He still had to throw the "duality" and the "corpuscular aspects", but he never did. Only Schrödinger did this step, but was defeated and eliminated.
June 9th, 2011, 02:01 PM
I have the books listed in my earlier post.First we have to access on both sides to the same handbooks, to discuss their tricks and failures.What, specifically, is being mis-taught and where (with references) ? Why is it wrong -- i.e. does it produce incorrect predictions or simply present an interpretation of quantum mechanics that you don't like ?
What do you consider to be a proper presentation ?
How is it different from the presentation in standard texts ?
Show, with appropriate references or complete arguments that your approach is valid, that is, mathematically consistent and in agreement with experimental data.
If I detail to you the tricks in the Cohen-Tannoudji, Laloe and Diu, it does not make sense to you : it is in french. And the Messiah, too.
Here in english I have the Greiner, or the old Linus Pauling and E. Bright Wilson, Jr. (Thanks to Dover).
Maybe you have an english version of the Landau and Lifchitz, Mir editions.
Maybe it will be enough to examine the last volume of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, where the main failures in reasoning are obvious, too.
Or pages in the english Wiikipedia. I use the french version as a quarry for blunders, for the collection of howlers.
My copies of Cohen-Tannoudji are in English. I prefer English but can struggle through scientific French if necessary. I do not recognize Laloe and Diu so you may be refering to a book that I do not posess. I do not have Pauling's QM book.
I do have the complete Landau and Lifshitz series, Elsevier/BH editions in English (I do not read Russian).. I also have the original Feynman Lectures on Physics and the most recent update.
Of the Greiner books I have:
Classical Electrodynamics
Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
Nuclear Models
Quantum Mechanics an Introduction
Quantum Mechanics, Symmetries
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics
Field Quantization
Quantum Electrodynamics
Quantum Chromodynamics
Gauge Theory of Weak Interactions
Pick one. And please answer the general questions posed above.
I have quite a few more if it becomes necessary to consider more, including von Neumann's The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
June 9th, 2011, 04:01 PM
Let's take the Feynman, vol 3, "Quantum Mechanics", chapter 1, and § 3.4.
Next comes the Greiner, "An introduction", § 3.3.
The worst is the Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu and Laloe, which exists both in french and in english, by ed. Hermann : at page 18, the frequency appears once, and disappears for ever at page 19, for the remaining of the 1509 pages. The Schrödinger's equation appears at page 236, ch. 3.D.
Heavily de-schrödingerised, of course...
Vae victis !
June 9th, 2011, 05:45 PM
My book by Cohen-Tannoudji is the quantum electrodynamics book, not Quantum Mechanics so that reference does me no good.Lets take the Feynman, vol 3, "Quantum Mechanics", chapter 1, and § 3.4.
Next comes the Greiner, "An introduction", § 3.3.
The worst is the Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu and Laloe, which exists both in french and in english, by ed. Hermann : at page 18, the frequency appears once, and disappears for ever at page 19, for the remaining of the 1509 pages. The Schrödinger's equation appears at page 236, ch. 3.D.
Heavily de-schrödingerised, of course...
Vae victis !
Now answer my original questions, using those references if you wish:
What, specifically, is being mis-taught and where (with references) ? Why is it wrong -- i.e. does it produce incorrect predictions or simply present an interpretation of quantum mechanics that you don't like ?
What do you consider to be a proper presentation ?
How is it different from the presentation in standard texts ?
Show, with appropriate references or complete arguments that your approach is valid, that is, mathematically consistent and in agreement with experimental data.
You are not administering a quiz here. It is not up to me to try to determine what you think is wrong in mainstream physics. You stated that QM was being "mis-taught". It is up to you to make that statement specific and to show that you are correct.
Now do so.
I think you may be misunderstanding what it means for a number to be a complex number. Would you have the same misgivings if the equations had used, for example, real matrices instead?
June 10th, 2011, 03:21 AM
Feynman pretended to explain the behaviour of an electron by the behaviour of a bullet. Let's see.
At the Lubianka, the standard threat was "9 grams of lead". We'll take a smaller bullet, 5 grams.
That is 5 mols of nucleons, Three millions of milliards of milliards of nucleons. Five point five milliards of milliards of milliards times heavier than an electron.
Are you sure it is representative ?
And the crushing of the bullet on the screen or on the target implies milliards of milliards of milliards of milliards of milliards of quantic reactions.
Are you sure it is representative ?
An electron has only one quantic reaction at the emitter, and only one quantic reaction at the absorber.
After the macroscopic bullets, Feynman takes a macroscopic flow of light or a macroscopic flow of water waves. Can water waves be representative of an electron ?
Please tell us what could be the intrinsic frequency of the water waves we produce in our waves tanks. Please explain us what could be the absorbing reaction that ends the travel of the wave...
Not the slightest idea of what qualitatively and quantitavely separates our macroscopic world, from the quantic world. It is not surprising that under these conditions "Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics" ; they took the right means to obtain this result.
See you later for the §3.4 of the same book.
June 10th, 2011, 07:49 AM
JC, I like what I'm hearing.
No. But Falaco solitons aren't bad. You can emulate attraction, repulsion, and annihilation with them. A Falaco soliton is something like half a smoke ring. I guess you know about this paper in Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie. A smoke ring lacks the "steering wheel" rotation for spin ½, but don't forget that Thomson and Tait were into smoke rings. They also "introduced the solid spherical harmonics in their Treatise on Natural Philosophy, and also first introduced the name of 'spherical harmonics' for these functions". See wiki. The electron is a quasi-spherical c^2½ harmonic light-structure. You can make it along with a positron out of light in pair production. You can diffract it. You can annihilate it with the positron to get light. And of course, it doesn't stop at electrons.
Feynman is one of my heroes of physics, but he did get a few things wrong. He wasn't wrong about Cargo Cult Science though.
June 10th, 2011, 08:07 AM
You might be able to ape these things, but you have demonstrated that you, personally, are unable to actually produce a prediction. You are not doing physics because you cannot actually describe the action of anything physical.
(NB: If one looks at old versions of Farsight's document, one can see that he did once make a prediction; he predicted the size of the observable universe. He actually makes two precitions that are off by a factor of over 20, if I recall correctly. He then erased that prediction and has never admitted that he made a mistake.)
Run along and let the adults talk. I am actually interested to see if JC can back up his claims with come actual examples of where the physics he is discussing goes wrong. We already know that you cannot back up anything quantitatively.
June 10th, 2011, 08:12 AM
Alas, this one cannot be read, but some pictures : bad fonts.
June 10th, 2011, 10:05 AM
Not better anyway.
But you are in a blind alley, there.
Any pretty picture MUST retrieve the same predictions, or even better predictions, than the actual formalism, using Pauli matrices, and Dirac matrices for instance.
The formalism is correct, though more obscure than necessary.
The semantics wraping it, is rubbish.
The formalism is strictly undulatory, and strictly determinist.
June 10th, 2011, 10:50 AM
There are direct questions on the table.Feynman pretended to explain the behaviour of an electron by the behaviour of a bullet. Let's see.
At the Lubianka, the standard threat was "9 grams of lead". We'll take a smaller bullet, 5 grams.
That is 5 mols of nucleons, Three millions of milliards of milliards of nucleons. Five point five milliards of milliards of milliards times heavier than an electron.
Are you sure it is representative ?
And the crushing of the bullet on the screen or on the target implies milliards of milliards of milliards of milliards of milliards of quantic reactions.
Are you sure it is representative ?
An electron has only one quantic reaction at the emitter, and only one quantic reaction at the absorber.
After the macroscopic bullets, Feynman takes a macroscopic flow of light or a macroscopic flow of water waves. Can water waves be representative of an electron ?
Please tell us what could be the intrinsic frequency of the water waves we produce in our waves tanks. Please explain us what could be the absorbing reaction that ends the travel of the wave...
Not the slightest idea of what qualitatively and quantitavely separates our macroscopic world, from the quantic world. It is not surprising that under these conditions "Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics" ; they took the right means to obtain this result.
See you later for the §3.4 of the same book.
Provide direct answers.
June 10th, 2011, 01:42 PM
One day, a newfie asked to another newfie :
- Say ! Do you know the story of the guide in the Museum in Cairo ? He shewn a small skull and said it was the skull of Cleopatra when she was a child, and a bigger skull. He said it was the skull of Cleopatra when adult.
- No, I do not know this story. Please tell it !
June 10th, 2011, 02:20 PM
I am not a "newfie". I am a PhD mathematician with quite a lot of other experience and interests. There are other professionals involved in this discussion (and you can safely ignore Farsight).One day, a newfie asked to another newfie :
- Say ! Do you know the story of the guide in the Museum in Cairo ? He shewn a small skull and said it was the skull of Cleopatra when she was a child, and a bigger skull. He said it was the skull of Cleopatra when adult.
- No, I do not know this story. Please tell it !
You have made assertions and been asked direct questions regarding those assertions.
Now back up your talk and answer the questions.
Ducking such direct questions is not the mark of a serious physicist.
It seems J.C. is making a typical mistake.
The QM model is just that, a model. Actual reality may be completely different, but the QM model makes very accurate predictions for physical questions. When this model is used for non-physical predictions you get garbage, just as with any other model such as GR, the Standard and Superstring models.
You have to have a basic understanding of the physics so that you know the boundary conditions and limits of the model and as a result, which predictions are valid and which are garbage.
So if Feynman is using a bullet to represent an electron, he is using it as an example of an indivisible particle and not as a statistical ensemble of billions of billions of electrons to make a valid prediction.
I hope I'm understanding the issues clearly as I'm having trouble understanding J.C. because of language ( translation ?? ) problems, but, if I am , J.C. is taking QM too 'literally'.
June 10th, 2011, 04:06 PM
All the answers were already on the table (except for the case of §3.4 of the Feynman, I still have to retrieve)....One day, a newfie asked to another newfie :
- Say ! Do you know the story of the guide in the Museum in Cairo ? He shewn a small skull and said it was the skull of Cleopatra when she was a child, and a bigger skull. He said it was the skull of Cleopatra when adult.
- No, I do not know this story. Please tell it !
You have made assertions and been asked direct questions regarding those assertions.
Now back up your talk and answer the questions.
Ducking such direct questions is not the mark of a serious physicist.
Simply you discarded them as soon you read them : they do not fit in the groupthink of the tribe. They do not fit with your fantasm of superiority.
But the groupthink of the tribe will NEVER fit.
Since 1927 it is a tribal war, under the cloak of a religion war. In 1926-1927, the motivation was to win the monopoly : "And after me, there will be no more prophets, as our new theory is complete !". Since 1927, the motivation is to keep the monopoly, whichever will be the cost for the tax-payers. So is the heritage in this tribal tribe.
June 10th, 2011, 04:31 PM
The tribal parlance is a novlangue for keeping a monopoly, to prevent the students asking the good questions.
You have just forgotten the complete contradiction between the formalism, which is correct, and the semantics it is wrapped in, which is a bag of scraps, strictly for the birds.
I did not write about "a statistical ensemble".
I did not write "prediction", too.
You did not know Charles de Gaulle. He had the art of asking half a dozen independant questions, and required only one "Yes" for the bulk : "Do you approve my foreign policy AND my colonial policy AND my internal policy AND my financial policy AND the mobsters around me AND do you love me ?". He called that a referendum. He wan them from 1958 to 1962. In 1969, he lost.
Here years after years, the tribe uses the same trick, packing independant things under one wraping : "If you do not agree that our semantics is perfect, then I accuse you to rejects the results of our formalism, and we reject you at your exams !".
Edit : replaced "shelled in", by "wrapped in". Hope it will help.
June 10th, 2011, 05:14 PM
OK you flunked the credibility test.All the answers were already on the table (except for the case of §3.4 of the Feynman, I still have to retrieve)....One day, a newfie asked to another newfie :
- Say ! Do you know the story of the guide in the Museum in Cairo ? He shewn a small skull and said it was the skull of Cleopatra when she was a child, and a bigger skull. He said it was the skull of Cleopatra when adult.
- No, I do not know this story. Please tell it !
You have made assertions and been asked direct questions regarding those assertions.
Now back up your talk and answer the questions.
Ducking such direct questions is not the mark of a serious physicist.
Simply you discarded them as soon you read them : they do not fit in the groupthink of the tribe. They do not fit with your fantasm of superiority.
But the groupthink of the tribe will NEVER fit.
Since 1927 it is a tribal war, under the cloak of a religion war. In 1926-1927, the motivation was to win the monopoly : "And after me, there will be no more prophets, as our new theory is complete !". Since 1927, the motivation is to keep the monopoly, whichever will be the cost for the tax-payers. So is the heritage in this tribal tribe.
By refusing to answer some simple questions and with the above irrational rant you have clearly identified yourself as a first-class crank.
What we have here folks is a psychologist masquerading as a scientist, with an agenda of some imagined slight of de Broglie, and probably Dabid Bohm as well, regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics.
http://jacques.lavau.perso.sfr.fr/
There are several, valid, interpretations of QM. To suggest a conspiracy to suppress understanding, or that Richard Feynman, of all people, is incompetent to explain quantum theory is just ridiculous.
Note how Lavau retreats to feigned persecution and assiduously avoids responding to simple direct questions. While some of his posts are enlightening, underneath it all is the distasteful and counter-productive agenda which he has here clearly revealed.
deBroglie-Bohm theory is one interpretation of QM. It is not "wrong". But neither is it the only valid interpretation. It is not suppressed. It is just not widely adopted, though it is widely known. Real physics is not dogmatic, despite what Lavau imagines.
There are classes and legitimate internet sites available to those who are interested. Nothing is being suppressed.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Sci...e-Bohm_Theory/
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html
June 10th, 2011, 05:18 PM
OK you flunked the credibility test.All the answers were already on the table (except for the case of §3.4 of the Feynman, I still have to retrieve)....One day, a newfie asked to another newfie :
- Say ! Do you know the story of the guide in the Museum in Cairo ? He shewn a small skull and said it was the skull of Cleopatra when she was a child, and a bigger skull. He said it was the skull of Cleopatra when adult.
- No, I do not know this story. Please tell it !
You have made assertions and been asked direct questions regarding those assertions.
Now back up your talk and answer the questions.
Ducking such direct questions is not the mark of a serious physicist.
Simply you discarded them as soon you read them : they do not fit in the groupthink of the tribe. They do not fit with your fantasm of superiority.
But the groupthink of the tribe will NEVER fit.
Since 1927 it is a tribal war, under the cloak of a religion war. In 1926-1927, the motivation was to win the monopoly : "And after me, there will be no more prophets, as our new theory is complete !". Since 1927, the motivation is to keep the monopoly, whichever will be the cost for the tax-payers. So is the heritage in this tribal tribe.
By refusing to answer some simple questions and with the above irrational rant you have clearly identified yourself as a first-class crank.
What we have here folks is a psychologist masquerading as a scientist, with an agenda of some imagined slight of de Broglie, and probably Dabid Bohm as well, regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics.
http://jacques.lavau.perso.sfr.fr/
There are several, valid, interpretations of QM. To suggest a conspiracy to suppress understanding, or that Richard Feynman, of all people, is incompetent to explain quantum theory is just ridiculous.
Note how Lavau retreats to feigned persecution and assiduously avoids responding to simple direct questions. While some of his posts are enlightening, underneath it all is the distasteful and counter-productive agenda which he has here clearly revealed.
deBroglie-Bohm theory is one interpretation of QM. It is not "wrong". But neither is it the only valid interpretation. It is not suppressed. It is just not widely adopted, though it is widely known. Real physics is not dogmatic, despite what Lavau imagines.
There are classes and legitimate internet sites available to those who are interested. Nothing is being suppressed.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Sci...e-Bohm_Theory/
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html
June 10th, 2011, 05:50 PM
You seem to have never seen scientists at work or instructing graduate students.
June 11th, 2011, 02:29 AM
Please do not hesitate to prove your statement.
June 11th, 2011, 12:19 PM
There is nothing to prove. The subject theory is widely known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory.Please do not hesitate to prove your statement.
You have been outed and debunked. End of discussion.
June 11th, 2011, 01:13 PM
Now we have all the written proofs that I was discussing with a mad.There is nothing to prove. The subject theory is widely known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory.Please do not hesitate to prove your statement.
You have been outed and debunked. End of discussion.
For those who are not, nothing is more simple than to search the word "Bohm" on the site :
http://deonto-ethics.org/mediawiki/i...h=Bohm&go=Lire
The search finds five occurrences :
Four are in the expression "Aharanov-Bohm experiment" : "Dans une expérience type Aharonov-Bohm, où un électron interfère si ...".
And the fifth is under the signature of Didier Lauwaert, where he admits that David Bohm was a corpuscularist. It was in a discussion in August 2007, on the Usenet group fr.sci.physique.
This accuser is a delirious paranoic. He had rather to consult a specialist, in his town.
Edit : spelling...
June 11th, 2011, 01:23 PM
Psychologist, heal thyself.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Sci...e-Bohm_Theory/
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html
June 11th, 2011, 01:36 PM
Everybody can see himself that I have nothing to do with the Broglie-Bohm thing.Psychologist, heal thyself.
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Sci...e-Bohm_Theory/
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html
A proof amongst hundreds :
http://deonto-ethics.org/mediawiki/i...h=Bohm&go=Lire
and dozens other proofs in this threads.
Do not hesitate to ask the help of psychiatrist. You really need such help.
June 11th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Hell, I'm a mathematician. They think we are all crazy.
But I don't feel too bad since they disqualified Richard Feynman from the draft due to mental incompetence. And I have had several background checks with no problems.
You, on the other hand, really do need help.
J.C I have very little respect for Charles DeGaulle. He was a pompous opportunistic glory hound who kept back the recovery of France after WW2 compared to other European countries.
Unless you CLEARLY state what problems you have with modern interpretation of Quantum theory and what truths are being hidden by conspiring physicists, I'll have the same kind of respect for you.
June 11th, 2011, 04:51 PM
Thank you for the perfidy :
According to you, the hotchpotch has no problems,
but it's me that would have problems with the hotchpotch.
Hin hin !
Well, just one solution : to burn the heretic, this non-believer !
Moreover, the heretic could be a bohmist, a trotskyst, a titist, ... who knows ? Even worse !
June 11th, 2011, 05:42 PM
Predictable.Thank you for the perfidy :
According to you, the hotchpotch has no problems,
but it's me that would have problems with the hotchpotch.
Hin hin !
Well, just one solution : to burn the heretic, this non-believer !
Moreover, the heretic could be a bohmist, a trotskyst, a titist, ... who knows worse !
When confronted with questions and issues you can't or don't wish to address you resort to a claim of persecution, and attempt to deflect attention from the direct question put to you. But you have no trouble claiming that the entire mainstream physics community has united to supppress your pet model, despite the demonstrated existence of formal classes dedicated to it. This is right out of "The Standard Manual for Cranks".
June 11th, 2011, 06:27 PM
I don't think that you're a bohmian (being a bohmian is a respectable position), but you do come off as a crank.Thank you for the perfidy :
According to you, the hotchpotch has no problems,
but it's me that would have problems with the hotchpotch.
Hin hin !
Well, just one solution : to burn the heretic, this non-believer !
Moreover, the heretic could be a bohmist, a trotskyst, a titist, ... who knows ? Even worse !
June 11th, 2011, 06:38 PM
You have enormous problems in distinguishing the singular from the plural, "DrRocket".
It is so recurrent, that clearly it is far more than a mere grammatical problem. Also, you prove yourself unable to distinguish one particular tribe, from all the tribes that cohabit on all the campuses of all countries.
This amalgamation of plural and singular, have you practised it always, or only in the recent years ?
Do you feel that anybody does like you, or have you noticed some differences ? That some persons distinguish between singular and plural ?
According to you, what are the pros and cons of distinguishing the singular from the plural ?
And the same set of questions, about distinguishing the reality from the fictions.
And why do you always prefer fiction to reality ?
Why do you systematically substitute your fiction to reality ?
June 11th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Equally predictable, he now engages in little more than personal attack and nonsensical distraction. Evasion is another characteristic of crankS.
Tom has a good post on Crackpot Bingo below which lays out the characteristics well:
http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/296
More here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
June 11th, 2011, 07:26 PM
Let's revert to the different ways of breaching the trust the students place on their teachers.
Following the leader of the Copenhagen pack, all the autors of handbooks eradicate the periodic character of any quanton (but the photon).
We have seen sooner the beginning of the book of Feynman :
Eradication at 100%.
The bulk of the authors eradicate the frequency at 99,9%.
We have evocated sooner the case of Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, Franck Laloé :
The dogma of "statistical interpretation", which is purely macroscopic, is heavily hammering all the long, with its clandestine companion, the corpuscularism - purely macroscopic, too.The worst is the Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu and Laloe, which exists both in french and in english, by ed. Hermann : at page 18, the frequency appears once, and disappears for ever at page 19, for the remaining of the 1509 pages. The Schrödinger's equation appears at page 236, ch. 3.D.
Heavily de-schrödingerised, of course...
Vae victis !
Now the Greiner, at Springer Verlag, "Quantum Mechanics, an Introduction" :
a fictitious and undefined pulsationof Broglie-but-Schrödinger-revised-non-relativist wave can't go further than pages 23-26. At page 30, any kind of wave is erased, leaving all the place to the "statistical interpretation". The Schrödinger's equation appears at page 86. At pages 156-159 come the details and diagrams of electronic density varying by the distance to the proton, for the Hydrogen atom, neutral and alone. Of course, they remain incompatible with the statistical myth of farfadic corpuscle, appearing farfadically. How can the farfadic corpuscle jump from one domain to another through surfaces of null density ? How could you spend your time half in the bed of your spouse Zeinab and half in the bed of your spouse Zobeid, without spendind a fraction of your time in the lobby between their rooms ?
But now the students are too late in the academic year, they cannot more have doubts about the fictions they are learning... Hurry up for your exams !
June 11th, 2011, 07:52 PM
You have enormous problems in distinguishing the singular from the plural, "DrRocket".
It is so recurrent, that clearly it is far more than a mere grammatical problem. Also, you prove yourself unable to distinguish one particular tribe, from all the tribes that cohabit on all the campuses of all countries.
This amalgamation of plural and singular, have you practised it always, or only in the recent years ?
Do you feel that anybody does like you, or have you noticed some differences ? That some persons distinguish between singular and plural ?
According to you, what are the pros and cons of distinguishing the singular from the plural ?
And the same set of questions, about distinguishing the reality from the fictions.
And why do you always prefer fiction to reality ?
Why do you systematically substitute your fiction to reality ?
As you should be able to recognize, but apparently cannot, I use the plural form when the plural form is appropriate and the singular form when that form is appropriate.
In any case, this issue is quite irrelevant to the subject at hand. It is an extraordinarily weak attempt to deflect attention from your continual exhibition of the characteristics of a crank.
I would expect much better from a competent psychologist, or even an incompetent physicist.
As to reality versus fiction, it is becoming quite clear that you are not competent to distinguish between the two. I have presented no fiction, and in fact have provided concrete evidence for my assertions. You on the other have alluded to a conspiracy on the part of the legitimate physics community, a conspiracy that demonstrably does not exist. de Broglie-Bohm theory is a perfectly respectable, albeit minority, interepretation of quantum mechanics. Your "conspiracy" is pure fiction.
Again, psychologist, heal thyself.
But while you do that do not mislead young people who wish to learn real science as to the true nature of physics and physicists. It is for the benefit of such inexperienced people that you see the experienced and professional participants on the board clearly identifying you for what you are.
June 11th, 2011, 09:42 PM
Your ignorance and mathematical incompetence are showing.Let's revert to the different ways of breaching the trust the students place on their teachers.
Following the leader of the Copenhagen pack, all the autors of handbooks eradicate the periodic character of any quanton (but the photon).
We have seen sooner the beginning of the book of Feynman :
Eradication at 100%.
The bulk of the authors eradicate the frequency at 99,9%.
We have evocated sooner the case of Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, Franck Laloé :
The dogma of "statistical interpretation", which is purely macroscopic, is heavily hammering all the long, with its clandestine companion, the corpuscularism - purely macroscopic, too.The worst is the Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu and Laloe, which exists both in french and in english, by ed. Hermann : at page 18, the frequency appears once, and disappears for ever at page 19, for the remaining of the 1509 pages. The Schrödinger's equation appears at page 236, ch. 3.D.
Heavily de-schrödingerised, of course...
Vae victis !
Now the Greiner, at Springer Verlag, "Quantum Mechanics, an Introduction" :
a fictitious and undefined pulsation
But now the students are too late in the academic year, they cannot more have doubts about the fictions they are learning... Hurry up for your exams !
Quantum theory has several aspects.
Quantum mechanics, the early quantum theory, is based on the Schrödinger wave mechanics or the equivalent Heisenberg matrix mechanics. It is strictly a non-relativistic theory, and cannot handle creation or annihilation of particles, a phenomenon that has been observed many many times in particle experiments. It was very successful in initial studies of the hydrogen atom, and is still taught as an introduction to quantum theory.
In order to be able to explain the results of experiments at high energy in particle accelerators, a quantum theory that is compatible with special relativity is needed. There is no wave equation of the type (the Schrödinger equation) that is found in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics that is compatible with both quantum theory and special relativity. Therefore it is quite natural that professors who teach introductory classes in quantum mechanics would at the same time present that material in a form that prepares the student to eventually study the more modern quantum field theories that are the proper melding of special relativity with quantum theory.
Feynman is one of the originators of the first successful quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics (QED). To criticize him for a brilliant presentation of elementary quantum theory that reflects the approach of QED is ridiculous.
Nevertheless, the Schrödinger equation is not neglected in introductory classes, your rant notwithstanding. Greiner discusses it at length (see below). Feynman, ever the master explains the historical and physical significance, and the implications of Schroedinger's genius in section 16-5. While that section may not meet with your approval, I, and I think it is safe to say many others, frankly don't give a damn.
But your rant is beyond ridiculous, it is irrational. How can"any kind of wave" be erased at page 30 of Greiner's book, when the Schrödinger equation is introduced at page 86 ? (In my third edition an entire chapter on the Schrödinger equation starts on page 107). It is also potentially damaging to young inexperienced people who wish to learn real science. You attempt to impose paradigms of classical behavior on the quantum world. Direct experiment has proved the fallacy inherent in such thinking. Yes, the behavior of elementary particles is counter-intuitive. That is just the way that nature is. Your failure to be able to comprehend that fact is no challenge to its veracity.
BTW "farfadic" seems to have escaped the editors of The Oxford English Dictionary.
June 12th, 2011, 05:20 AM
Please do not hesitate to exhibit proofs of this theory.
If you can't, do not hesitate to ask the help of your psychiatrist. It is his/her job.
June 12th, 2011, 05:26 AM
"Farfadet" : "goblin" in english.
Or something so.
June 12th, 2011, 07:27 AM
False, merely false.
Heisenberg matrix mechanics was only based on spectrography, the transitions in the electronic cloud of an atom in vapor. It cannot find the wave length of a moving electron, Louis de Broglie had found in 1923 by joining the Planck Law and the Einstein law into the intrinsic frequency.
So the Laue and Debye-Scherrer diffractograms with electrons or neutrons are beyond reach to Heisenberg matrix mechanics.
Moreover, the radiocrystallographists soon noticed that the widths of the diffractograms peaks depend on both the dimensions of the crystallite on one side, and of the dimensions (length and width) of the photon or the electron or the neutron, on the other side.
At the International Court of Commerce, I could catch an international crook by the widths of the diffractograms he pretended to have expertised : they were far too narrow for a clay, this material was a silt. And the minerals found in it were not clayish nor plastic, too. And so on for the other frauds of this professor.
http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...pic,133.0.html
Conversely, the fineness of the spots in a Laue diffractogram also depends heavily of the precision of the monochromatic character of the photon or electron or neutron. They impose a lower limit for the depth and width for them. Anyway far bigger than one atom for the wavelengths usable in crystallography.
Oddly enough, lots of knowledges do not percolate form a lecture room to another.
See also http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23279 and http://deonto-ethics.org/mediawiki/i...Zitterbewegung.
Only in macrophysics can exist some "corpuscular aspects". Never in microphysics ; not any experiment supports such an odd ideation.
See also the Afshar experiment :
http://irims.org/quant-ph/030503/Afs...rity%20All.PDF.
But our mad-of-the-village may accuse Shahriar Afshar to be Bohmian-in-his-soul, big-endian-in-his-heart, trying-to-impose-a-classical-behaviour, and all this kind of things, for the religion war purposes...
An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules, E. Schroedinger, The Physical Review (December, 1926) Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 1049-1070it seems...
i am just begining to think why we donot have some concrete logic behind it.....
did schrodinger not explain us that clearly about why he used complex no?....i think i must refer to his original papers now.....
i am just too curious to know much about schrodinger equation....
June 12th, 2011, 11:35 AM
It could be found inline some years ago, but not any more, alas.
June 12th, 2011, 12:56 PM
wrongFalse, merely false.
...
Schrodinger knew that
"In May 1926 Schrödinger published a proof that matrix and wave mechanics gave equivalent results: mathematically they were the same theory."
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/n...ev/node35.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=6jX...hanics&f=false
You are personally fanning the flames of acrimony and failure to understand quantum mechanics that prevailed in the very earliest days of the development of quantum theory. You don't know what you are talking about, and you are a menace to the neophytes on the board..
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ve_matrix.html
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/H...M/DevelQM.html
Technically, Scrodinger had to add a little to matrix mechanics to get the equivalence. His first proof had a slight mistake, too, I believe, but both of these issues were resolved by a second paper by Schrodinger, at which time he had a better proof and matrix mechanics had also advanced.
I once had a citation to a great 2 part article about the history of the equivalence proof, but I have lost it and I can't find my notes. (They're from pre-everything-electronic days.)
So, prior to the ability for confusion to spread at the speed of light ?
On the other hand, I did my dissertation on an IBM selectric typewriter, with a symbol ball. Painful is an inadequate word.
June 12th, 2011, 03:08 PM
A far more convenient method, to bend the History to your needs, is to use the Memory Hole, as used by B.L. Van der Waerden in its "Sources of Quantum Mechanics" (1967 North-Holland, 1968 Dover).wrongFalse, merely false.
...
Schrodinger knew that
"In May 1926 Schrödinger published a proof that matrix and wave mechanics gave equivalent results: mathematically they were the same theory."
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/n...ev/node35.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=6jX...hanics&f=false
You are personally fanning the flames of acrimony and failure to understand quantum mechanics that prevailed in the very earliest days of the development of quantum theory. You don't know what you are talking about, and you are a menace to the neophytes on the board..
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ve_matrix.html
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/H...M/DevelQM.html
June 12th, 2011, 03:18 PM
The only one pushing distortions here is you. Crank
June 12th, 2011, 05:39 PM
This paper is only available by paying.It could be found inline some years ago, but not any more, alas.
I still have it on disc, a 1326 ko file.
For private use only, I can mail it to who asks it.
The explanation for the further collective mistakes - including Schrödinger's himself - is plainly done there, and of course is absent in the Nobel lecture.
http://www.yaronhadad.com/Site/Philo...inger1926c.pdf
June 12th, 2011, 07:04 PM
Schrodinger knew that
"In May 1926 Schrödinger published a proof that matrix and wave mechanics gave equivalent results: mathematically they were the same theory."
Its a problem when you only gues a solution to the funy results
June 17th, 2011, 01:29 PM
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:18 pm Post subject: Re: Breaching the trust of the students
Added to your record.The only one pushing distortions here is you. Crank
| « could perspective answer what happens at the event horizon? | PLS HELP.... » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
