This is a question on an idea I had. I've been doing work on Dirac's Equation, and the topic of the infinite sea came in, and I postulated the following:

What if to every virtual particle pair in the vacuum there is a corresponding entangled virtual particle pair?

So to every two virtual particles, there may exist two more virtual particles which are virtually-connected via entanglement?


I postulate this cocnerning the Dirac Sea. This would mean that when two particles appear from the vacuum, there remains two virtual particles in vacuum that remain closely connected to the real particles pervaiding the vacuum. To stop a degeneration in the energy levels of the electron so that it stopped from falling back into the vacuum?



As I understand the discontent among scientists concerning the issue of the Dirac Sea, is that it has an infinite amount of energy in this sea; and so to neutralize it, you require an infinite amount of positive energy as well in the form of a proton sea. This is disturbing as it requires a mathematical proceedure called renormalization which Dirac was never fully happy about, including many scientists still alive today.

If there was an extra two virtual particles always in entanglement, my question is if this can resolve the electrons from falling back in the vacuum - we would not have to deal with an infinite amount of electrons, but beleive that initially before any appeared in the universe, there where twice as many electrons in the visible universe.

I've been doing work on Dirac's Equation, and the topic of the infinite sea came inI'll say this as nice as possible, you haven't. In this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104248) you admit you've never worked with natural units before. You can't even formulate simple wave expressions and do partial derivatives for scalar expressions, so I don't for a second think you're capable of extending this to spinor expressions, as they are more complicated than vectors, which are more complicated than scalars, which you can't manage to do properly.


What if to every virtual particle pair in the vacuum there is a corresponding entangled virtual particle pair?

So to every two virtual particles, there may exist two more virtual particles which are virtually-connected via entanglement?
How precisely did you arrive at this 'postulation'? Did you actually do anything with the Dirac equation or did you just read some wordy explanations and just decide to combine two concepts you've read about?


As I understand the discontent among scientists concerning the issue of the Dirac Sea, is that it has an infinite amount of energy in this sea; and so to neutralize it, you require an infinite amount of positive energy as well in the form of a proton sea. This is disturbing as it requires a mathematical proceedure called renormalization which Dirac was never fully happy about, including many scientists still alive today.
The proton has nothing to do with it. Originally when Dirac realised there would be a particle of opposite charge he thought it was the proton, as no one else knew of any other positively charged particles but it was actually the positron, which was discovered the following year. The Dirac sea was a way of interpreting quantum field theory predictions which has seen stopped being considered the correct way to look at things. We don't view a positron as a 'gap' in the electron field, we view it as a particle in its own right, there's nothing special about normal matter.

Renormalisation is not due to the 'proton sea' or the 'dirac sea' or neutralising positive energy. Renormalisation removes the infinite vacuum energy from a calculation but it doesn't do it by 'neutralising' anything, that's a physical process. It does it by removing the irrelevant vacuum energy from the prediction.

Like I said at the beginning, I'll say this as nice as possible, stick to the simple stuff. If you're struggling to do even basic differential equations and vectors then by jumping to trying to do stuff with the Dirac equation you're only deluding yourself and you'll only harm your own learning because you'll either utterly fail to understand what you read or worse, you'll think you do and really you don't. There's a reason the Dirac equation doesn't come up in physics courses until the 4th year, it requires considerable knowledge and experience with simpler quantum mechanical concepts and mathematical methods. You'll advance a lot lot faster by not jumping ahead of where ever you are currently. This forum (and the internet in general) is littered with people who didn't want to do the simple, required 'boring' stuff like vector calculus and wanted to do black holes and quantum gravity, which they cannot actually do. I have yet to meet anyone who can actually do anything related to black holes or quantum field theory who skipped ahead of the 'boring' stuff.

Emmm... Don't start twisting my words sir. I have been doing work on it. My own personal investigation into it. That is work nonetheless.

Alphanumeric, do not start to talk to me like the others here. If you do, I will do to you what I did to guest. Ignore mode, it's an excellent action in some cases.

''The proton has nothing to do with it. Originally when Dirac realised there would be a particle of opposite charge he thought it was the proton, as no one else knew of any other positively charged particles but it was actually the positron, which was discovered the following year. The Dirac sea was a way of interpreting quantum field theory predictions which has seen stopped being considered the correct way to look at things. We don't view a positron as a 'gap' in the electron field, we view it as a particle in its own right, there's nothing special about normal matter.

Renormalisation is not due to the 'proton sea' or the 'dirac sea' or neutralising positive energy. Renormalisation removes the infinite vacuum energy from a calculation but it doesn't do it by 'neutralising' anything, that's a physical process. It does it by removing the irrelevant vacuum energy from the prediction.''

That's all very nice, but is the idea consistent?

''How precisely did you arrive at this 'postulation'? Did you actually do anything with the Dirac equation or did you just read some wordy explanations and just decide to combine two concepts you've read about?''

How did I arrive at it?

Entanglement as I am sure you know, involves connected particles quantum mechanically, and, it also involves particle pairs - one system is connected to another system, if the two where created from the same source. If antiparticles truely do not come in pairs, and if there is always another two virtual particles in the vacuum, then all four particles can be quantum mechanically-connected, or atleast, I would have presumed so.

... scrap that.

[edited]

If it's anything, I also remembered another reason, or inspiration if you like, concerning the four-entanglement.

This was based on Susskinds work cosncerning that quarks do not come individually, but always by pairs or more.

In the same sense, I applied the same reasoning to the wave function. Not only does a single particle come with an antiparticle, even those particles come with virtual antiparticle-particle pairs.

My question is very simple. Is the idea consistent or flawed? One problem might be, is if there is no infinity in the equations, would this result in a constraint where electrons can show up, in their real forms? If there is atleast a small amount of spacetime where the virtual particles do not fill, will this place a crucial limit for instance, on where real particles can show up?

Emmm... Don't start twisting my words sir. I have been doing work on it. My own personal investigation into it. That is work nonetheless.What precisely is this 'personal investigation'? If you can't do the mathematics than you are only able to 'investigate' it by reading other people's wordy explanations of their investigations. Even if you could then reach a viable qualitative conclusion you have no way of examining whether or not your conclusions are true as you're unable to examine the equation's mathematical properties.

There's nothing wrong with reading about it or finding out how its used by physicists or the formulation in terms of mathematics but if you think you're investigating it in the way someone writing research papers on it would then you're deceiving yourself. This isn't me trying to twist words or be rude, its just a bit of advice that I'm sure a great many people who do research into the Dirac equation will agree with.


Alphanumeric, do not start to talk to me like the others here. If you do, I will do to you what I did to guest. Ignore mode, it's an excellent action in some cases.
This is hardly the way to behave if you're intellectually honest. I've been through the whole process of learning about the Dirac equation and I know many people who have done it too, so I know from first and second hand experiences that you're not going to do anything worthwhile if you aren't willing to put in the effort for the basics. There's a reason advanced university courses often have 'required courses', without the basic fundamentals understood then someone cannot do the more advanced material which builds on them.

If you think that this is such an insulting thing for me to say that it warrants putting me on ignore than you really need to consider what it is you want to do, do you want to learn something or just appear to learn something? Its no skin off my nose if you want to do the latter though.


That's all very nice, but is the idea consistent?
Renormalisation? Yes. And its not 'all very nice', as my point was that you were mistaken about the development and meaning of the things you mentioned. Do you now accept that you were mistaken or do you wish me to explain further? I just don't want you to brush off my correction and ignore it, as its only hurting your own learning if you do that.


Entanglement as I am sure you know, involves connected particles quantum mechanically, and, it also involves particle pairs - one system is connected to another system, if the two where created from the same source. If antiparticles truely do not come in pairs, and if there is always another two virtual particles in the vacuum, then all four particles can be quantum mechanically-connected, or atleast, I would have presumed so.
Why are you talking about 4 particles? The entanglement would be between the two particles created in pair production. Other pairs need not be involved, though it is possible occasionally they might interact and form entangled systems for a while.

This illustrates my point, in order to examine entanglement in quantum field theories you're going to need to know some quantum field theory, non-relativistic quantum mechanics and entanglement. Entanglement in non-relativistic quantum mechanics has particular properties which can be formulated nicely in terms of the bra-ket notation so if someone were to attempt to describe in any non-arm waving away entanglement in spinor fields of quantum field theory they'd need to demonstrate similar structures to the non-relativistic case are formed when pair production occurs.

In the case of your claim you'd need to demonstrate that not only does pair production produce entangled pairs but it produces entangled pairs of entangled pairs! Even in the simplest examples you can get different types of entanglement, depending on which particles entangle with which. The GHZ state \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big( |000\rangle + |111\rangle \Big) and the W state \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\Big( |100\rangle + |010\rangle + |001\rangle \Big) are both 'maximally entangled' triplets of qubits but they are not equivalent. This only gets worse as you increase from qubits to qudits and triplets to arbitrary numbers. Hence 'investigation' into entanglement in quantum field theory pair production would need to be very precise and methodical. If you lack the knowledge to be able to do the details then there's very little investigation you can do.

My advice, speaking from personal experience, is you start with non-relativistic quantum mechanics, understand formal entanglement properties in it and then move onto quantum field theory (and that's assuming you also learn all the required things for those!). Of course the only person's time you'll be wasting if you don't is your own but if you aren't just wanting to appear well read but to actually be well read then you'll heed my advice.


This was based on Susskinds work cosncerning that quarks do not come individually, but always by pairs or more.
Pair production and colour confinement are two different things, other than if you put enough energy into a system to pull colour charges apart you 'snap' the gluonic flux tube and you get more quarks via pair production. Pair production facilitates colour confinement but it doesn't cause it. And quarks don't come in matter-antimatter pairings always, that's only for mesons. Baryons have 3 quarks, so you can't have pairings in that. The reason for the pairings and triplets of quarks is their colour, not what you're implying.

Again, if you read up on the basics before making conclusions you will make less flawed conclusions.


My question is very simple. Is the idea consistent or flawed? One problem might be, is if there is no infinity in the equations, would this result in a constraint where electrons can show up, in their real forms? If there is atleast a small amount of spacetime where the virtual particles do not fill, will this place a crucial limit for instance, on where real particles can show up?
I think you need to first get your head around the a 'virtual' particle is.

You've skipped ahead and now making mistake after mistake. Yes, it takes people doing this stuff full time 3~5 years to get to quantum field theory but there's a reason for that, just as there's a reason universities teach quantum field theory after quantum mechanics, special relativity, electrodynamics, linear algebra and vector calculus, QFT is very complex and requires an understanding of a great many areas of maths and physics. Without that understanding you aren't going to get far, even if you manage to convince yourself otherwise.

I will be back and forth a lot tonight, I will try and answer these many questions before the night is over.

What precisely is this 'personal investigation'? If you can't do the mathematics than you are only able to 'investigate' it by reading other people's wordy explanations of their investigations. Even if you could then reach a viable qualitative conclusion you have no way of examining whether or not your conclusions are true as you're unable to examine the equation's mathematical properties.

There's nothing wrong with reading about it or finding out how its used by physicists or the formulation in terms of mathematics but if you think you're investigating it in the way someone writing research papers on it would then you're deceiving yourself. This isn't me trying to twist words or be rude, its just a bit of advice that I'm sure a great many people who do research into the Dirac equation will agree with.

May I take you attention sir to this lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUySvFEwmj8&feature=related

This has been my fourth source so far, but yet, one of the most illuminating yet so far, as the lecture take the avid listener to the derivation of the dirac equation. Many of my questions recently have came from this lecture, and it was here the dirac sea was mentioned and with some interesting conversations on the mathematics behind it.

I don't find this particular lecture one which I understand quite well, minus a few things - but, nevertheless, the derivation of the Dirac Equation uses some matrix analysis, which I didn't find too hard to understand.

This is hardly the way to behave if you're intellectually honest.

Sir to be honest, I'd rather not put you on ignore. I don't see much good from it, I just want a bit of leniency... All I want is to learn, and hopefully test my idea to a scientist like yourself. But all I ask is if it is kept civil... surely this is not too much to ask?

Renormalisation? Yes. And its not 'all very nice', as my point was that you were mistaken about the development and meaning of the things you mentioned. Do you now accept that you were mistaken or do you wish me to explain further?

I totally accept I was wrong... I can show you why I was mistaken. I read a source about there being required a positive energy which must cancel out the negative energy, but I assumed this involved a proton sea. If you look above, one of my posts was scrapped - I thought I was seeing it in the right light, but after a third time looking over it, I now realize you where unconditionally-correct.

Why are you talking about 4 particles? The entanglement would be between the two particles created in pair production.

Well, I speak of four particles, because indeed, two particles are created in pairs, and if the dirac sea is a vacuum filled with virtual particles, I assumed by a hypothesis at best that there could be a possible extra two particle entanglements in order to satisfy there entangled state to never degenerate back into the vacuum, using pauli spin matrices and entanglement, the latter here I thought might be important, as so that if the do try to degenrate, that is, either the normal or antiparticle with have corresponding virtual particles always there to ''oust out'' their attempts to fill energy states in the vacuum.

Other pairs need not be involved, though it is possible occasionally they might interact and form entangled systems for a while.

Again, I did so, because by my hypothesis/theory there will be two virtual particles in the vacuum always corresponding to the real particles that are also in entangled states.

Understand me??

Pair production and colour confinement are two different things

I was not clear enough, this is my fault. I meant this is an analogy, of my inspiration, not that I meant color charge was necessery in the hypothesis - it was just an inspiration in idea.

I think you need to first get your head around the a 'virtual' particle is.

Well, I do know that they do not follow the normal energy-mass relativistic laws. They exist in real spacetime for limited times, but they still return to vacuum - i think.

The short span in which virtual particles can appear does not follow the energy-momentum relationship, meaning that they can move faster than light in some cases.

What part of my misunderstanding, can you help me learn here?

Did you give up on this discussion alphanumeric?

I truely wanted the stamp of approval if it's possible.

Then I could worry about a mathematical side of it with entangled particles and Pauli Matrices describing their respective spins and how they related to four-entanglements.

Did you give up on this discussion alphanumeric?So first you don't want to hear what I have to say because you think I'm such an arrogant arse you'd put me on ignore and decided to leave and now you want my comments? No doubt if I don't say what you want to hear you'll not what to listen.


I truely wanted the stamp of approval if it's possible. Yes, you want someone to strengthen your self delusion, as if you're seen to be using technical words then maybe someone will think you actually understand them.


but, nevertheless, the derivation of the Dirac Equation uses some matrix analysis, which I didn't find too hard to understand.Sure you did.... The fact you don't know any calculus, you can't do basic algebra, you don't understand tensors and you have repeatedly mixed up vector and scalar expressions demonstrates you didn't understand 'some matrix analysis'.


Well, I speak of four particles, because indeed, two particles are created in pairsTwo particles is a pair. They are paired with one another, not two other particles.


that there could be a possible extra two particle entanglements in order to satisfy there entangled state to never degenerate back into the vacuum, using pauli spin matrices and entanglementLet's see your working/thoughts involving the Pauli matrices. Don't arm wave, I previously asked you to provide the details of your 'thoughts' and explained why superficial work is not going to get very far or lead to anything concrete. Demonstrate, quantitatively, clearly and explicitly using the things you've mentioned, why four particles are needed. What precisely needs to be 'satisfied'?

Let me make that clear, I don't want you to answer with a paragraph of arm waving, I want you to show, using algebra, how you arrived as your conclusion. You mentioned Pauli spin matrices so I want to see precisely what you've done in terms of them. You brought them up and now I want you to put your maths where your mouth is.


the latter here I thought might be important, as so that if the do try to degenrate, that is, either the normal or antiparticle with have corresponding virtual particles always there to ''oust out'' their attempts to fill energy states in the vacuum.You appear not to know what 'virtual' means as you've just used it in an incorrect manner.


Again, I did so, because by my hypothesis/theory there will be two virtual particles in the vacuum always corresponding to the real particles that are also in entangled states.

Understand me??Justify that claim. And like I just said, don't just spout some wordy bullshit, I'm not going to facilitate you deluding yourself into thinking you're doing science by allowing you to just spout buzzwords, I want you to back up your claims and justify your 'hypotheses'. Clearly you want to be involved in discussions which use lots of technical words and I firmly think its because you want to be seen to be talking about high level stuff in order to appear like you know and understand high level stuff. If you actually know high level stuff you shouldn't be needing to just do arm waving, you should be able to provide copious amounts of quantitative workings and if you can't do that and you just spout arm waving nonsense then don't whine when you get bitch slapped for spouting crap.

Understand me??


Well, I do know that they do not follow the normal energy-mass relativistic laws. They exist in real spacetime for limited times, but they still return to vacuum - i think.

The short span in which virtual particles can appear does not follow the energy-momentum relationship, meaning that they can move faster than light in some cases. And how in any way does that link to your 'hypothesis' about four particles being entangled?


Then I could worry about a mathematical side of it with entangled particles and Pauli Matrices describing their respective spins and how they related to four-entanglements. I don't for a nanosecond think you can do anything quantitative relating to those things, as your other threads on attempting to do mathematics have demonstrated repeatedly. If you think I'm wrong demonstrate as much, show that you aren't just desperately trying to convince people (yourself most of all) that you can do these things by dropping buzzwords left, right and centre. You do that and I'll play nice. If you come back with absolutely nothing to justify your claims and nothing that demonstrates your supposed understanding of Pauli matrices, matrix algebra and the Dirac equation then don't be surprised when people think you're just blow smoke out your backside.

I will listen, if you have anything other to say, than making out the other person to be a liar. I said I understood the matrix computations. I have done some matrix work in the past, I understand how to multiply matrices, even by row or column vectors. But when you sit there and say ''no you didn't'' - I can't help but feel you are quite accusationally calling me a liar.

Besides, I've taken some classes in physics. You'd be pretty surprised if some had, but was not able to do matrix-calculations. Afterall, it's practically part-and-parcel of QM.

I can't help but feel you are quite accusationally calling me a liar.Bingo.


Afterall, it's practically part-and-parcel of QM.When you can actually demonstrate you can do anything other than flail your arms and spout buzzwords let me know.

I don't feel threatened one bit. I know I can do matrix computations.

Then lets see you respond to my requests you actually show you can do anything related to the Pauli matrices. You brought them up and I've asked you demonstrate your claim you can do them and that you've been 'investigating' the Dirac equation in a way which is more than just reading wordy explanations.

Can you do anything more than just arm waving and desperate attempts to convince people you can do mathematics while not doing any mathematics?

Then lets see you respond to my requests you actually show you can do anything related to the Pauli matrices. You brought them up and I've asked you demonstrate your claim you can do them and that you've been 'investigating' the Dirac equation in a way which is more than just reading wordy explanations.

Can you do anything more than just arm waving and desperate attempts to convince people you can do mathematics while not doing any mathematics?

Well no, I don't know much about Pauli Matrices, only that they are matrices. I've read up on them a few times, but I forget their details. No, I wan't talking about that, and you know fine well.

You called me a liar when I said I understood the matrix calculations. I did not lie, I know how to multiply matrices together, get their time-advanced forms, multiply matrices with row and column vectors. I've even been taught a little on subspaces in matrix algebra. I have a problem when you call me a liar when I know fine well I am not.

And you know fine well the lecture I took you to was more than a wordy explanation. You're also a liar for saying I could do the pauli matrices - I asked you if it was possible so I could only then need to worry about the mathematics - my exact words.

If you are going to start making erreneous claims, I will put you back on ignore. That's a promise.

Well no, I don't know much about Pauli Matrices, only that they are matrices. I've read up on them a few times, but I forget their details. No, I wan't talking about that, and you know fine well.
That contradicts your claim you've been 'investigating' the Dirac equation but obviously you don't realise that because you don't understand how the Pauli matrices relate to the Dirac equation.

The Pauli matrices form a set of operators which act on 2 dimensional Weyl spinors and they form a Clifford algebra. The 4 dimensional case is the Dirac matrices which form a Clifford algebra and which act on 4 dimensional Dirac spinors. 4 dimensional Dirac spinors can be written as pairs of two dimensional Weyl spinors, as anyone whose done anything to do with the Dirac equation will have seen first hand. In a particular representation the Dirac matrices are written in terms of the Pauli matrices.

If you claim you've only covered the Pauli matrices in the sense you know they are matrices then you can't then claim you've been investigating the Dirac equation because the Dirac equation is most readily understood in terms of the Pauli matrices and 2d spinors!

Your lack of understanding on topics you want people to think you understand once again leads to you contradicting yourself. Of course you don't realise you contradict yourself but you're daft enough to lie about topics which some of us have worked on. I seriously don't understand why you would lie about physics on a physics forum and then act surprised when someone points out your contradictions and mistakes. It's like not knowing how to speak French, going to France for holiday and then being surprised when people point out you're just making up words when you try to talk to them. If you want to deceive people about your level of knowledge in physics go to an arts forum or move to Alabama.

If you claim you've only covered the Pauli matrices in the sense you know they are matrices then you can't then claim you've been investigating the Dirac equation because the Dirac equation is most readily understood in terms of the Pauli matrices and 2d spinors.

Well, actually, they are requisite to understanding the energy level of the vacuum, but I disagree you must have a qualitative understanding of the matrices to understand the equation.

I could talk a lot of the equation now, without running into the complexities of pauli matrices.

It seems much of the equation was understood when Dirac starting postulating on it - atleast, many of the mathematical rigors. It wasn't until afterwards Pauli came to Dirac with a solution to prevent electrons from simply falling back into the sea, which is precisely what the matrices do.

I could talk a lot of the equation now, without running into the complexities of pauli matrices.You can't do anything quantitative though, which is precisely my point. I asked you to clarify what you meant by 'investigating' and you ignored my question. If you haven't any understanding of the quantitative stuff then all your 'investigation' is just reading wordy explanations other people have provided you and then just making stuff up. Without the quantitative understanding you have no way of developing any results which aren't just baseless conjecture.

So what precisely was your 'investigation'? What did it involve?


It seems much of the equation was understood when Dirac starting postulating on it - atleast, many of the mathematical rigors. It wasn't until afterwards Pauli came to Dirac with a solution to prevent electrons from simply falling back into the sea, which is precisely what the matrices do. See this just demonstrates how you have no intention of not spouting BS. The Pauli exclusion principle was years before QED and the Pauli matrices were used in non-relativistic quantum mechanics before too. Pauli didn't go to Dirac after and say "I've got a way of stopping them falling into that state", Dirac built it into it from the start.

Dirac was after a 1st order (in space-time coordinates) differential equation to describe the electron which would then imply the second order wave equation. Essentially he wanted an operator which could 'square' to the D'Alembert operator. But it had to have spinorial properties, as spinorial fields manifest the Pauli exclusion principle by anticommuting. However, the operator couldn't have vector properties so he couldn't just use the simple case of \partial_{\mu} as its vector valued. Instead he combined it with a set of matrices whose indices are spinor indices and whose 'family' index is a vector index aka the Dirac matrices, ie \partial_{\mu} \to \gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} = D where \gamma^{\mu} has indices \gamma^{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}. If D^{2} = -\partial_{t}^{2} + \Delta then you need \gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\n u} = \partial^{\nu}\partial_{\nu}. It follows that \gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}+\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu} \equiv \{\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}\} = 2 \mathbb{I}. This is the defining property of a Clifford algebra.

The Pauli matrices then come into via the use of chirality. In 4 dimensions you can define chirality on a spinor via \gamma^{5} and thus can split a Dirac spinor into opposite chirality Weyl spinors. The Dirac equation then becomes an equation involving 2 2d spinors and the Dirac matrices for 2d spinors are the Pauli matrices. That is how they arise in the Dirac equation, it wasn't Pauli saying after the work had been done "I've got something you could add in", they follow from the essential property of the Dirac operator. The Pauli matrices weren't an afterthought, Dirac knew what he needed to put in to build up the right mathematical structure and the Pauli matrices are implicit in the methods he used.

You can't do anything quantitative though, which is precisely my point. I asked you to clarify what you meant by 'investigating' and you ignored my question. If you haven't any understanding of the quantitative stuff then all your 'investigation' is just reading wordy explanations other people have provided you and then just making stuff up. Without the quantitative understanding you have no way of developing any results which aren't just baseless conjecture.

So what precisely was your 'investigation'? What did it involve?

I attempted at finding different but reliable resources which helped to explain the Dirac Equation. Until I began to find information repeating itself was when I realized I was pretty much finding all the prelimineries required.


See this just demonstrates how you have no intention of not spouting BS. The Pauli exclusion principle was years before QED and the Pauli matrices were used in non-relativistic quantum mechanics before too. Pauli didn't go to Dirac after and say "I've got a way of stopping them falling into that state", Dirac built it into it from the start.

Don't be too harsh as I don't know why I formed that opinion. I just did my history there, and you are right. Apparently Dirac classed his equation of independantly discovering 2x2 matrices and pauli independantly discovered his.

So what precisely was your 'investigation'? What did it involve?

So far, I have decided to make a base for the conjecture, a supposed set of mathematical axioms to demonstrate a connection between a virtual particle and a real particle. Once I have done that, I need to apply that for two virtual particle pairs connected to every real particle in the vacuum. Then I need to apply that to what I am currently trying to get my head round, the pauli matrices.

There will be two systems as subsystems (S_1,S_2) in the complex and real valued range, and it's description will rely on the state vector acting on the Hilber Space H.

The representation in superspace has for these subsystems S_1,S_2|\psi> \in (N: \mathbb{C}, \mathbb{R}) so that the representation of the physical states of each subsystem are eingenfunctions of an operator - so we will have an observable excpectancy <\psi|A_{1,2}|\psi> associated to S_1 and S_2.

This means in their respective phase spaces, they will be reflected through probability to have each subsystem reflect at least two possible eigenstate conditions \phi and \phi*.

If system S_1 was created from the same source as S_1, then they belong as a corrolated system. The eignstates of the mixed-system represented by the supserposition of S_1+S_2 would then be given as:

\alpha_0 \chi \phi* \mathbb{V} \alpha \chi \phi

where V denotes the ''or'' and \alpha, \alpha_0 are complex coefficients. The joint system therefore has an initial state given as:

\psi_0= \chi_0(\alpha_0,\phi*+\alpha,\phi)

We therefore have a joint state simply as \chi_0,\phi* and \chi,\phi. Now suppose on the Hilbert Space, we arrange it so that the range of c_n is the one which follows a non-linear distribution through time:

|\Psi>=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \psi_n c_n

If the range of the n^{th} power is effected by a noisy thermal background (or some kind of strong coupling on a system) on the system \mathbb{S}=(S_1,S_2) of subsystems, their interaction terms U can be given as:

U\psi_0= \alpha_0 \chi_0 \phi*+\alpha \chi \phi

In our case, we will use a ground state condition for the state vector on the Hilbert Space,

0|\Psi>= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|g>+e^{-i\phi}|g*>]

So far, we consider the mixed state \alpha_0 \chi \phi* + \alpha \chi \phi_{+}* consisting of an abstraction of a particles spin description and that of a virtual particle description in a state of entanglement.

This means \chi_{\pm}= \alpha_1[(\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix})]+\alpha_2([\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}])

How long did it take you to come up with this?

So far, I have decided to make a base for the conjecture, a supposed set of mathematical axioms to demonstrate a connection between a virtual particle and a real particle. Once I have done that, I need to apply that for two virtual particle pairs connected to every real particle in the vacuum. Then I need to apply that to what I am currently trying to get my head round, the pauli matrices.
In other words you're going to just make stuff up or lift it from elsewhere and hope people swallow it.


There will be two systems as subsystems (S_1,S_2) in the complex and real valued range, and it's description will rely on the state vector acting on the Hilber Space H. State vectors don't act on Hilbert spaces, they are elements in a Hilbert space. Well done, you managed 1 sentence before demonstrating you're a liar.


The representation in superspace has for these subsystems S_1,S_2|\psi> \in (N: \mathbb{C}, \mathbb{R}) so that the representation of the physical states of each subsystem are eingenfunctions of an operator - so we will have an observable excpectancy <\psi|A_{1,2}|\psi> associated to S_1 and S_2. What has superspace got to do with it, superspace involves extending space-time to include a set of Grassman variables, such a process is done in supersymmetry, which Dirac's work has nothing to do with. You've clearly copied this from somewhere else and failed to understand the things it talks about are irrelevant to your claims.


This means in their respective phase spaces, they will be reflected through probability to have each subsystem reflect at least two possible eigenstate conditions \phi and \phi*. This isn't even a coherent sentence. And you haven't given an eigenstate 'condition', you've just given two expressions which are conjugate to one another.


The eignstates of the mixed-system represented by the supserposition of S_1+S_2 would then be given as:

\alpha_0 \chi \phi* \mathbb{V} \alpha \chi \phiSystems don't have eigenstates, operators do. You are demonstrating you don't understand basic terminology. Again.


where V denotes the ''or''The what?


We therefore have a joint state simply as \chi_0,\phi* and \chi,\phiSpurious use of commas.


Now suppose on the Hilbert Space, we arrange it so that the range of c_n is the one which follows a non-linear distribution through time:

|\Psi>=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \psi_n c_nYour equation doesn't follow from your statement, which itself doesn't make sense. All you've done is say "I will write a state as the sum of a basis" which is something you can do in any Hilbert space, its why they are used. And you haven't given any time dependence, non-linear or not. The equation you give is a linear combination!


If the range of the n^{th} power is effected by a noisy thermal background (or some kind of strong coupling on a system) Power? You haven't given any expression involving powers. You have given an expression involving a countable basis which is indexed by an integer but that isn't a power. This is even more basic than quantum mechanics, its basic vectors!


on the system \mathbb{S}=(S_1,S_2) of subsystems, their interaction terms U can be given as:

U\psi_0= \alpha_0 \chi_0 \phi*+\alpha \chi \phi You've again failed to understand the thing you've copying. You haven't given an interaction term, as might be given in a Lagrangian, you have given the initial state \psi_{0} acted on by some operator U and then given the effect of this. Allowing for your inability to explain things properly what the source you've gotten this from was likely talking about was that you can formulate the interactions as an operator on the non-interacting system, this operator being U.



0|\Psi>= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|g>+e^{-i\phi}|g*>]Another example of your inability to understand the source material you're copying. The left hand side as you've written it is zero times some state. Now it doesn't take a whiz to realise that zero times something is zero, which is not what you have. What the thing you copied likely says is operator O acting on the state, which is entirely different. Clearly you didn't do this algebra yourself else you'd not have said something so daft as 0 times a state is something non-zero. But then if you'd done the algebra yourself you'd know what an operator and a state and a Hilbert space is and you'd not have used anything to do with superspace (which you haven't mentioned past your initial definitions so its completely irrelevant).


So far, we consider the mixed state \alpha_0 \chi \phi* + \alpha \chi \phi_{+}* consisting of an abstraction of a particles spin description and that of a virtual particle description in a state of entanglement. Putting on a white coat doesn't make you a scientist, just like you mouthing stuff you lifted from other sources doesn't make you a physicist.


So far, we consider the mixed state \alpha_0 \chi \phi* + \alpha \chi \phi_{+}* consisting of an abstraction of a particles spin description and that of a virtual particle description in a state of entanglement.

This means \chi_{\pm}= \alpha_1[(\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix})]+\alpha_2([\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}])That's not an entangled system. Your expression for \chi_{\pm} is nothing more than a general linear combination of a 2 dimensional system. Using the notation \chi_{\pm} implies there's something specific about each case but the right hand side doesn't have any \pm in it and its not a specific system, its the general expression for any state in that Hilbert space. You haven't done anything, your conclusion is a specific example of the assumption you made further up, |\Phi\rangle = \sum c_{n}\psi_{n}, which itself is a property of the Hilbert space formalism. You've done in a massive pointless circle and done nothing to do with entanglement.

You are Reiku2.0, either literally or in spirit, in that he does precisely the same as you, lifting (sometimes wholesale) large sections of detailed work other people have done and then trying to tweak it so that it can't be easily found by doing a Google search. Of course in doing that tweaking he (and you) inevitably introduces mistakes because h doesn't understand what he's altering or how he should alter it. You have obviously lifted much of what you've posted in part or in whole from other sources because you have absolutely no reason to mention superspace nor do you make any use of it. You have misused basic terminology which should be learnt before ever even opening a QM book.

How many times are we going to go through this, where you copy stuff incorrectly or irrelevantly, you get your deception exposed and then you cry about how we're all so mean? No one here forced you to post shit, so you can't complain that its me being unkind or being crude, you have lied and its laid out for everyone to see. Why on Earth would you come to a physics website which you know is read by people who do quantum mechanics for a living and then try to bullshit your way past them claiming to be doing your own QM research? No rational person would try such a thing and certainly no rational person would try it repeatedly as you have. What drives you to do it? Desperate for attention? Extremely stupidity? A potent combination of the two?

No doubt you'll whine about how mean I've been, you might even start another whiny thread over in the feedback forum to complain about how low class 'certain members' (ie me) are but I'm also sure you won't be able to retort the criticisms I've made of your post because you know full well you've plagiarised, copy/edited and just bullshitted that post together.

In other words you're going to just make stuff up or lift it from elsewhere and hope people swallow it.

State vectors don't act on Hilbert spaces, they are elements in a Hilbert space. Well done, you managed 1 sentence before demonstrating you're a liar.

What has superspace got to do with it, superspace involves extending space-time to include a set of Grassman variables, such a process is done in supersymmetry, which Dirac's work has nothing to do with. You've clearly copied this from somewhere else and failed to understand the things it talks about are irrelevant to your claims.

This isn't even a coherent sentence. And you haven't given an eigenstate 'condition', you've just given two expressions which are conjugate to one another.

Systems don't have eigenstates, operators do. You are demonstrating you don't understand basic terminology. Again.

The what?

Spurious use of commas.

Your equation doesn't follow from your statement, which itself doesn't make sense. All you've done is say "I will write a state as the sum of a basis" which is something you can do in any Hilbert space, its why they are used. And you haven't given any time dependence, non-linear or not. The equation you give is a linear combination!

Power? You haven't given any expression involving powers. You have given an expression involving a countable basis which is indexed by an integer but that isn't a power. This is even more basic than quantum mechanics, its basic vectors!

You've again failed to understand the thing you've copying. You haven't given an interaction term, as might be given in a Lagrangian, you have given the initial state \psi_{0} acted on by some operator U and then given the effect of this. Allowing for your inability to explain things properly what the source you've gotten this from was likely talking about was that you can formulate the interactions as an operator on the non-interacting system, this operator being U.

Another example of your inability to understand the source material you're copying. The left hand side as you've written it is zero times some state. Now it doesn't take a whiz to realise that zero times something is zero, which is not what you have. What the thing you copied likely says is operator O acting on the state, which is entirely different. Clearly you didn't do this algebra yourself else you'd not have said something so daft as 0 times a state is something non-zero. But then if you'd done the algebra yourself you'd know what an operator and a state and a Hilbert space is and you'd not have used anything to do with superspace (which you haven't mentioned past your initial definitions so its completely irrelevant).

Putting on a white coat doesn't make you a scientist, just like you mouthing stuff you lifted from other sources doesn't make you a physicist.

That's not an entangled system. Your expression for \chi_{\pm} is nothing more than a general linear combination of a 2 dimensional system. Using the notation \chi_{\pm} implies there's something specific about each case but the right hand side doesn't have any \pm in it and its not a specific system, its the general expression for any state in that Hilbert space. You haven't done anything, your conclusion is a specific example of the assumption you made further up, |\Phi\rangle = \sum c_{n}\psi_{n}, which itself is a property of the Hilbert space formalism. You've done in a massive pointless circle and done nothing to do with entanglement.

You are Reiku2.0, either literally or in spirit, in that he does precisely the same as you, lifting (sometimes wholesale) large sections of detailed work other people have done and then trying to tweak it so that it can't be easily found by doing a Google search. Of course in doing that tweaking he (and you) inevitably introduces mistakes because h doesn't understand what he's altering or how he should alter it. You have obviously lifted much of what you've posted in part or in whole from other sources because you have absolutely no reason to mention superspace nor do you make any use of it. You have misused basic terminology which should be learnt before ever even opening a QM book.

How many times are we going to go through this, where you copy stuff incorrectly or irrelevantly, you get your deception exposed and then you cry about how we're all so mean? No one here forced you to post shit, so you can't complain that its me being unkind or being crude, you have lied and its laid out for everyone to see. Why on Earth would you come to a physics website which you know is read by people who do quantum mechanics for a living and then try to bullshit your way past them claiming to be doing your own QM research? No rational person would try such a thing and certainly no rational person would try it repeatedly as you have. What drives you to do it? Desperate for attention? Extremely stupidity? A potent combination of the two?

No doubt you'll whine about how mean I've been, you might even start another whiny thread over in the feedback forum to complain about how low class 'certain members' (ie me) are but I'm also sure you won't be able to retort the criticisms I've made of your post because you know full well you've plagiarised, copy/edited and just bullshitted that post together.

I never copied anything. I am trying to remember what you call ''basic stuff.''

How long did it take you to come up with this?

One night.

I never copied anything.

You don't even know how to delimit a basic interval, yet we're supposed to believe you have any competency in this stuff? I'm sorry, but I cannot suspend that much disbelief - The Core (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html) gets more things right than you do.

This is such an obvious lie Shaggy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ4axo9rmJY) would be embarrassed.


I am trying to remember what you call ''basic stuff.''
You cannot remember what you have not committed to memory. And you never learned any of this stuff. AN has it exactly right - you copied something you don't understand, and smothered it in technical terms you also don't understand, and are now trying to pass it off as your internalized knowledge.

You're a fraud, plain and simple.

You're a fraud, plain and simple.

Ok.

You don't have to like me. I understand that.

Anyway, Alphanumeric has assumed some things not true to the work, because it wasn't explained in full detail. The wave function will be non-linear in evolution, despite what it seemingly shows because of a strong coupling on the system. The wave function of probability will follow rules similar to

\Psi(t)=sin^2(\frac{\pi}{2}t)

and so N: \Psi \frac{1}{N} \ne \Psi(1)..

Which will require that there is a change in the probability field which is not a linear state in time.

I never copied anything. I am trying to remember what you call ''basic stuff.''Rubbish.

The prime example of why you're talking rubbish is your mentioning of superspace. You'll be hard pressed to find an undergraduate course in physics which covers superspace, as its a concept which is not introduced until a student has done quantum field theory and wishes to go further into it, ie supersymmetry.

If you'd done superspace you'd know it has nothing to do with the 'basic stuff'. You'd know that you make no use of it after you mention it. You'd know that it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make.

What about all the other things I point out, where you misuse terminology, get definitions wrong and quote irrelevant things?

If you were really someone honestly trying to do physics after a few years and were just a bit rusty you'd have not worked all the way through to a conclusion and then only said "Oh I might be mistaken" after someone points out all your errors. You would have instead discussed things with people and gone one step at a time. I'm absolutely certain that if I (or someone else) hadn't gone through all your errors you'd be quite happy to say "This is all correct, see I can do quantum physics" (which is precisely the attitude you've taken in previous threads).

You clearly aren't trying to remember basic things because you never learnt the basic things in the first place and since you're then forced to copy/edit other people's work you don't know where the line between 'basic terminology' and 'advanced research' is.


Ok.

You don't have to like me. I understand that. Are you admitting to being a fraud? If not then explain why you mentioned superspace. Explain why your 'conclusion' is nothing but a stating of a definition. Explain why you misuse terminology about Hilbert spaces. Explain why you can't multiple something by zero properly. Explain why your posts smack of you copying other people's work and trying to edit them enough to look different.


Anyway, Alphanumeric has assumed some things not true to the work, because it wasn't explained in full detail. Precisely what have assumed? Precisely what have I criticised which I shouldn't have?

And let's consider your new attempt to dig yourself out of a hole of your own making....


The wave function will be non-linear in evolution, despite what it seemingly shows because of a strong coupling on the systemYou haven't given any interaction potential. I previously commented you had mucked up that bit of your post.


The wave function of probability will follow rules similar to

\Psi(t)=sin^2(\frac{\pi}{2}t)

and so N: \Psi \frac{1}{N} \ne \Psi(1).Looks like someone has been looking up Xeno's paradox in quantum mechanics. You once again demonstrate you don't understand what you're saying because you don't realise that that particular solution is to a specific equation. A wavefunction can be anything which satisfies the Schrodinger equation. If you are talking about a specific potential then you're talking about a specific form of the Schrodinger equation and thus the wavefunction from one system will not be valid for another. Since you haven't given the potential and you actually mention 'strongly coupled' (but don't define what you mean) you can't then just pull out a wavefunction which happens to come from a very simple system (its simple enough to be given as homework to QM students during their first course) and talk about it.


Which will require that there is a change in the probability field which is not a linear state in time.Yes, the quantum mechanical concept of "a watched pot never boils" needs for the wavefunction to not be linear in time. What precisely does that have to do with anything in your previous post, which was (supposedly) about entanglement, a completely different phenomenon?

Precisely as I predicted, you complain but you don't actually retort any criticism made of you. Instead you spout more shit and hope somehow it'll mean your previous posts weren't also shit.

Rather than spouting more liars or more stuff you copied from elsewhere why don't you try having an honest discussion? Or is having to admit you're not a whiz at physics too much to ask of you?

Rubbish.

The prime example of why you're talking rubbish is your mentioning of superspace. You'll be hard pressed to find an undergraduate course in physics which covers superspace, as its a concept which is not introduced until a student has done quantum field theory and wishes to go further into it, ie supersymmetry.

If you'd done superspace you'd know it has nothing to do with the 'basic stuff'. You'd know that you make no use of it after you mention it. You'd know that it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make.

What about all the other things I point out, where you misuse terminology, get definitions wrong and quote irrelevant things?

If you were really someone honestly trying to do physics after a few years and were just a bit rusty you'd have not worked all the way through to a conclusion and then only said "Oh I might be mistaken" after someone points out all your errors. You would have instead discussed things with people and gone one step at a time. I'm absolutely certain that if I (or someone else) hadn't gone through all your errors you'd be quite happy to say "This is all correct, see I can do quantum physics" (which is precisely the attitude you've taken in previous threads).

You clearly aren't trying to remember basic things because you never learnt the basic things in the first place and since you're then forced to copy/edit other people's work you don't know where the line between 'basic terminology' and 'advanced research' is.

Are you admitting to being a fraud? If not then explain why you mentioned superspace. Explain why your 'conclusion' is nothing but a stating of a definition. Explain why you misuse terminology about Hilbert spaces. Explain why you can't multiple something by zero properly. Explain why your posts smack of you copying other people's work and trying to edit them enough to look different.

Precisely what have assumed? Precisely what have I criticised which I shouldn't have?

And let's consider your new attempt to dig yourself out of a hole of your own making....

You haven't given any interaction potential. I previously commented you had mucked up that bit of your post.

Looks like someone has been looking up Xeno's paradox in quantum mechanics. You once again demonstrate you don't understand what you're saying because you don't realise that that particular solution is to a specific equation. A wavefunction can be anything which satisfies the Schrodinger equation. If you are talking about a specific potential then you're talking about a specific form of the Schrodinger equation and thus the wavefunction from one system will not be valid for another. Since you haven't given the potential and you actually mention 'strongly coupled' (but don't define what you mean) you can't then just pull out a wavefunction which happens to come from a very simple system (its simple enough to be given as homework to QM students during their first course) and talk about it.

Yes, the quantum mechanical concept of "a watched pot never boils" needs for the wavefunction to not be linear in time. What precisely does that have to do with anything in your previous post, which was (supposedly) about entanglement, a completely different phenomenon?

Precisely as I predicted, you complain but you don't actually retort any criticism made of you. Instead you spout more shit and hope somehow it'll mean your previous posts weren't also shit.

Rather than spouting more liars or more stuff you copied from elsewhere why don't you try having an honest discussion? Or is having to admit you're not a whiz at physics too much to ask of you?

I needed an interaction, other than one involving simply a collapse model.

And I thought superspace was basically the space configurations of possibilities. I was obviously wrong.

I needed an interaction, other than one involving simply a collapse model. Collapse model? What collapse model? The wavefunction collapse is not a model of a collapsing system, the dynamics of the wavefunction are quite different from the notion of it collapsing. Collapsing is done using observations, the dynamics are found using the equation of motion, the Schrodinger equation.


And I thought superspace was basically the space configurations of possibilities. I was obviously wrong.Why didn't you look it up? If you're trying to remember why aren't you checking your work first? Why aren't any of your posts phrased as "I had a vague idea which I think involves the following", why are they all phrased as "Here's the details you wanted which demonstrate I'm right", which then turn out to be bullshit? There wasn't a hint of "I'm a bit rusty" in your reply, it was clearly meant as "I've managed pairs of pairs, here's my derivation of that, as you asked", as if you had a firm belief you were presenting viable science.

This is not the first thread, you made a similar slew of basic errors, both mathematical and in terminology, in your electromagnetism thread. In that
thread you used similar excuses, about how you're a bit rusty. Clearly you learnt nothing from that as you behaved exactly the same here, spewing out crap as if its viable and then making excuses when you get called on it. A reasonable person would have realised that if they've forgotten so much then perhaps they should read up on it before trying to pass it off as science.

And I can't help but notice you're ignoring my questions. Can't you explain why your final equation have nothing to do with entanglement? Can't you explain why you don't check anything you say before you say it? Can't you respond to my question about you being a fraud? Rather than spend an evening (so you claim) writing another BS thread like this one how about you spend that time answering questions in this thread which people ask you? If you're unwilling to defend yourself when you post BS and someone calls you on it don't be surprised that the next time you post BS people treat you even less pleasantly, it is seems like you're avoiding acknowledging your lies and mistakes and you just want to keep pumping out more lies and mistakes in the hopes someone might think you're not a thick lying hack.

The problem is that your style is known and no one is going to give you the benefit of the doubt now. Instead of thinking "I don't know this but he seems to be using lots of big words so he's probably right." the default image of you now is "I don't know this but he seems to be using lots of big words so he's probably making shit up.". Time for a new username Lee.

And I can't help but notice you're ignoring my questions.

To be fair, half your post consists of accusations rather than real questions, hence I intentionally miss them out, because to be frank, I have a wicked hangover, and I just don't have any motivation for you today. Or most days.

Enough time to write crap but not enough to defend it? Hallmarks of a hack.

Enough time to write crap but not enough to defend it? Hallmarks of a hack.

Tell that to the bottle of vodka I punished last night.

The bottle might care more. :shrug:

So that's your excuse for today, what about all the other days? what's your excuse for never being able to defend yourself against criticism with anything other than more bs or saying you 'forgot' the right expression.

I asked you what I incorrectly assumed, so you claim, about the opening post. How about you give specifics rather than whiny excuses?

So that's your excuse for today, what about all the other days? what's your excuse for never being able to defend yourself against criticism with anything other than more bs or saying you 'forgot' the right expression.

I asked you what I incorrectly assumed, so you claim, about the opening post. How about you give specifics rather than whiny excuses?

Wow.

You're actually begging me nearly to answer you. I never realized you looked so forward to our little rendezvous.

So that's your excuse for today, what about all the other days? what's your excuse for never being able to defend yourself against criticism with anything other than more bs or saying you 'forgot' the right expression.

I asked you what I incorrectly assumed, so you claim, about the opening post. How about you give specifics rather than whiny excuses?

yeh, feeling better now. How are you?

In fact, don't bother answering, I really don't care.

Anyway, I will cut to chase. I read your post again to rephresh my memory, and alas, I am still reminded to why I keep ignoring you. Until you work on those communicational skills, more truthful questions and less decieving tactics, like ''sock puppet allegations,'' I will not be part of it.

You're actually begging me nearly to answer you. I never realized you looked so forward to our little rendezvous.I know you'd like to think people give two shits about you and your nonsense but I don't. I asked you direct questions because I know if you aren't repeatedly asked you'll just move onto another thread and spout a different pile of crap. Your behaviour and replies are predictable, I'm just trying to pre-empt you jumping to another thread and starting all this again (and undoubtedly not justifying anything you say).


Anyway, I will cut to chase. I read your post again to rephresh my memory, and alas, I am still reminded to why I keep ignoring you. Until you work on those communicational skills, more truthful questions and less decieving tactics, like ''sock puppet allegations,'' I will not be part of it. Refresh is spelt with an f.

And what a surprise, you come up with a pathetic excuse about why you won't defend a single thing you said. I guess its self fulfilling : you post crap, people say its crap, you say "That's mean" and then you use that as an excuse not to reply to anything anyone says to you.


like ''sock puppet allegations,'' I will not be part of it. You just happen to share all of his idiosyncrasies, right down to the misspelling of things like 'rephresh' and 'decieve'.

Use Firefox, it has built in spell checking. It won't help you with bullshit physics though.

I had bad dylsexia when I was younger.

Anything else you'd like to poke fun at?

I had bad dylsexia when I was younger.


Well, isn't that a coincidence? Reiku also claims to have had dyslexia when he was younger.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1631286&postcount=3

Well, isn't that a coincidence? Reiku also claims to have had dyslexia when he was younger.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1631286&postcount=3

1 in 10 children have dyslexia.

Your claims are unsubtantiated, and with a hollow understanding of how common it is.

Your claims are unsubtantiated.....


I didn’t make a claim :rolleyes:; I asked a question regarding a coincidence and commented on a claim made by (supposedly) someone else.

Isn’t it a coincidence that your misunderstanding of the English language and inability to apply basic logical analysis is also remarkably similar to Reiku?

(That’s also a question, not a claim.)

I didn’t make a claim :rolleyes:; I asked a question regarding a coincidence and commented on a claim made by (supposedly) someone else.

Isn’t it a coincidence that your misunderstanding of the English language and inability to apply basic logical analysis is also remarkably similar to Reiku?

(That’s also a question, not a claim.)

Coincidences, in the real world, happen all the time.

Are you a mystic? If not, you have to have a bad eye. I've read some of his posts. While I do not share many of his contentions, did you ever notice he never uses capitol ''I's'' in his sentences.

I do.

p.s. This is all done, yet, on another hangover. Best part is, I can see my blood vessels in my eyes pulsating.

p.s. This is all done, yet, on another hangover. Best part is, I can see my blood vessels in my eyes pulsating.Wow, you're so cool. If you hit the books as hard as you hit the vodka maybe you'd not need to lie so much.

That's the best retort I've ever had from you AN.

Very witty.

But I'd like to know what I've lied about.

p.s. This is all done, yet, on another hangover. Best part is, I can see my blood vessels in my eyes pulsating.


That’s funny, Reiku used to carry on all the time about getting drunk..... :rolleyes:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1627306&postcount=164

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1586599&postcount=26

That’s funny, Reiku used to carry on all the time about getting drunk..... :rolleyes:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1627306&postcount=164

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1586599&postcount=26

Guess what, here's another coincidence.

I've been here not too long, but I've seen one poster saying how incredibly drunk they are, and the other one apologizing for a thread they made because they were drunk.

Here's a conspiracy: They must be all the same person, including me.



What a joke. I certainly wouldn't hire you to be a PI.

This means \chi_{\pm}= \alpha_1[(\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix})]+\alpha_2([\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}])

Thats Numberwang!!!!!

But I'd like to know what I've lied about.Was the great many of posts of mine where I point out your mistakes, contradictions and flat out lies too subtle?

Even in this thread you haven't retorted any of my criticisms, you only come out with "I'm too hungover to bother", as if that's an excuse for the fact when you can be bothered to type lengthy posts you just post shit.

But I'd like to know what I've lied about.
Oh, come on! You've been caught numerous time with the lie stick so far up your botty it's come out of the top of your skull.

In this very thread you've made the ridiculous claim that your mangled "content" posts are not copied, but it is painfully obvious that you cannot have originated any of the (and I use the term very loosely) math in those posts, nor even be reciting from memory: You've demonstrated many times that you fail at understanding math I would consider prerequisite to even begin learning the prerequisite math for the physics involved. The hilarious comedy of errors that AN pulled apart demonstrates the point perfectly, and puts that lie (sadly, one of many) to shame.

Links. Proof.

You're so quick to judge, I've never lied about fuck all.

Links. Proof.

Ahem. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2630141&postcount=114)


You're so quick to judge, I've never lied about fuck all.
That's another lie, then. Boy, you just keep racking them up.

Or, let me guess, you have amnesia as well? Or perchance you drank that (admittedly painful) memory away?

Links. Proof.Who precisely are you trying to fool here? You know full well you've been corrected on huge numbers of things, had your utter lack of grasp at even basic terminology pointed out again and again, had inconsistencies in your claims exposed and your lack of understanding on the topics you start threads on demonstrated.

In this thread you talk about the Dirac equation yet you don't know what Pauli matrices are. No one learns quantum mechanics and don't know about the Pauli matrices. You've a thread on electromagnetism yet you don't know what the cross product is, despite it being in Maxwell's equations! You mention your 'work' on EM can lead to Gauss's law yet you don't know anything about polar coordinates. You don't know what 'covariant' means despite it being used in electromagnetism and vector calculus. You claim you've done your own 'work' in quantum mechanics yet you don't know the meaning of 'Hilbert space'. You don't know the difference between a state and an operator, you don't know what entanglement means despite you writing a lengthy post supposedly deriving some result, in which you also demonstrate you don't know the definition of a linear combination when you see it. You claim you're trying to 'remember the basic stuff' yet your 'work' inexplicably includes buzzwords relating to irrelevant and utterly unrelated things like 'superspace', suggesting you copy/edited someone else's work. You have even failed to distinguish between vectors and scalars.

And in all those cases you've failed to retort any criticisms, you just avoid responding or try to change the subject, only to pop up with another thread of crap later on. You've now realised that your posts get ripped to shreds with such scathing comments that you are starting all your threads under the 'alpha rules' so as to be able to run to a moderator if you feel someone is being mean. If you could actually stand up for your claims and present reason and justification for them you'd not need to do that as people wouldn't be exasperated reading another pile of waffle from you as you desperately try to convince yourself you're not an abject failure in physics (as you're certainly not convincing anyone else!).


You're so quick to judge, I've never lied about fuck all.How is months of this nonsense 'quick'? How many times have I asked you to justify your claims? How many opportunities have you had to provide some semblance of logic and rigour to your claims? In all cases you've failed to step up and demonstrate you have any understanding of the topics you start threads on.

How about another chance? Explain, precisely, why you mentioned superspace here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2633052&postcount=24). Why do you have a state multiplied by zero not equal to zero? Why does a post on entanglement contain nothing on entanglement? Why do you think your final expression is a 'result'?

Come on, if you're so outraged at being called a liar and a fraud demonstrate you know about things you post about. You seem to have the time to write lengthy posts and yet never have the time to respond to any comments which point out mistakes. Or you're too hungover. :rolleyes:

Alphanumeric, grow up for gods sake.

That is not a lie, no where near the definition of a lie.

Alphanumeric, grow up for gods sake.
Giving you another opportunity to demonstrate that's something to your claims means I need to 'grow up'?

As usual you complain that people don't take you seriously but when you're given the opportunity to step up you refuse to do so. I think you need to look a little closer to home first. You are whining people think you're a liar and yet you're refusing to do anything to retort anything anyone says and then you continue to post threads in precisely the same style. You post a threat, someone points out the kind of flawed approach you have, you whine and then post another thread with the same flaws and problems.

And you're surprised people think you're a fraud?!

Its not necessary to demonstrate line by line algebraic workings for people to think "He seems to know what he's talking about". Relatively few of the posts by myself, Prometheus, Guest, Ben, Cpt etc are more maths than words yet we view one another as competent and informed on a variety of topics. And when anyone does probe our knowledge a little deeper, either out of genuine inquiry or to see if we're full of nonsense, we can demonstrate we know the details. None of us post the details of our research, yet ironically we get accused of being show offs from people who do post their pet theories (often pet theories about theories of everything :rolleyes: ).

There's a book called 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre in which he recalls the comments of someone who challenged Gillian McKeith about her scientific credentials. In it the person comments that its a standard tactic for those who fake or lie about their scientific qualifications to throw hissy fits when challenged. In comparison if someone said to him "You're not a doctor!" he wouldn't sue or whine, he'd laugh in their face. It's like Kent Hovind claiming to have a PhD yet the 'college' he got it from won't allow anyone to read it, yet any legit PhD should be freely accessible. Hell, I had to sign a form and provide copies to say I agree for mine to be available from the British Library, I couldn't hide it even if I wanted.

So even if you don't want to step up and answer simple direct relevant questions in this thread bear what I said in mind for any future thread you might want to start. Whining when someone challenges you is the antithesis of good scientific practice. I've learnt a great deal from sentences which begin "Your idea is incorrect because...." and you'll not find a single competent scientist who hasn't.

So first you don't want to hear what I have to say because you think I'm such an arrogant arse you'd put me on ignore and decided to leave and now you want my comments? No doubt if I don't say what you want to hear you'll not what to listen.

Yes, you want someone to strengthen your self delusion, as if you're seen to be using technical words then maybe someone will think you actually understand them.

Sure you did.... The fact you don't know any calculus, you can't do basic algebra, you don't understand tensors and you have repeatedly mixed up vector and scalar expressions demonstrates you didn't understand 'some matrix analysis'.

Two particles is a pair. They are paired with one another, not two other particles.

Let's see your working/thoughts involving the Pauli matrices. Don't arm wave, I previously asked you to provide the details of your 'thoughts' and explained why superficial work is not going to get very far or lead to anything concrete. Demonstrate, quantitatively, clearly and explicitly using the things you've mentioned, why four particles are needed. What precisely needs to be 'satisfied'?

Let me make that clear, I don't want you to answer with a paragraph of arm waving, I want you to show, using algebra, how you arrived as your conclusion. You mentioned Pauli spin matrices so I want to see precisely what you've done in terms of them. You brought them up and now I want you to put your maths where your mouth is.

You appear not to know what 'virtual' means as you've just used it in an incorrect manner.

Justify that claim. And like I just said, don't just spout some wordy bullshit, I'm not going to facilitate you deluding yourself into thinking you're doing science by allowing you to just spout buzzwords, I want you to back up your claims and justify your 'hypotheses'. Clearly you want to be involved in discussions which use lots of technical words and I firmly think its because you want to be seen to be talking about high level stuff in order to appear like you know and understand high level stuff. If you actually know high level stuff you shouldn't be needing to just do arm waving, you should be able to provide copious amounts of quantitative workings and if you can't do that and you just spout arm waving nonsense then don't whine when you get bitch slapped for spouting crap.

Understand me??

And how in any way does that link to your 'hypothesis' about four particles being entangled?

I don't for a nanosecond think you can do anything quantitative relating to those things, as your other threads on attempting to do mathematics have demonstrated repeatedly. If you think I'm wrong demonstrate as much, show that you aren't just desperately trying to convince people (yourself most of all) that you can do these things by dropping buzzwords left, right and centre. You do that and I'll play nice. If you come back with absolutely nothing to justify your claims and nothing that demonstrates your supposed understanding of Pauli matrices, matrix algebra and the Dirac equation then don't be surprised when people think you're just blow smoke out your backside.

Your grace is lacking. You should get in touch with your feminine side. I don't know the root of your hostility, but something in your past must have created it. No offense Brother human.

It's like Kent Hovind claiming to have a PhD yet the 'college' he got it from won't allow anyone to read it, yet any legit PhD should be freely accessible. Hell, I had to sign a form and provide copies to say I agree for mine to be available from the British Library, I couldn't hide it even if I wanted.

Apparently Kent Hovind's Ph.D. "thesis" is available on the web, the skeptics were able to obtain a copy somehow and I think they have it posted, or at least excerpts from it. Not sure which is worse as far as discrediting one's own Ph.D. from a diploma factory that doesn't offer any courses: Not containing a single original thought or new argument, or having grade-school-level grammar and spelling mistakes. I remember the vague details, it went something along the lines of "Darwin was a bad bad man, he liked to have sex with Satan. God doesn't like Darwin." Now even if the man could spell, he's hardly doing himself any favours by waving around his fake Ph.D., and even if it came from Oxford University itself, that Ph.D. is in theology, which is about as useful to science as a Ph.D. in Lord of the Rings folklore.

What I'm more interested in is whether anyone's managed to track down even one of these "high schools" where Hovind claims he used to teach "high school science". If he did actually teach, based on the demented arguments he makes I think he would have failed his own class. It's sad that Michael Shermer had to go out in front of an audience of frenzied hillbillies to debate this moron, when a well-learned high school student would have been sufficient to put him in his place, and the hillbillies would get it too because for them it would be like "this kid smart, Hovind pretty dumb". Good thing they took Hovind's guns away when they were busting him for tax fraud, for in his own mind the man dreams himself our lord and master, totally unstable character.

Apparently Kent Hovind's Ph.D. "thesis" is available on the web, the skeptics were able to obtain a copy somehow and I think they have it posted, or at least excerpts from it.

In 1999, Skip Evans requested from Patriot University a copy of Kent Hovinds dissertation and they sent the original, complete with illustrations cut from textbooks and scotch-tapped into the dot-matrix printout.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/12/read_for_yourself_kent_hovinds.php

It might be true that the original is now in the possession of the NCSE.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/kent_hovinds_doctoral_disserta.php (comment 6)


Links to copies:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissert ation (PDF? Site down or busy)
http://www.filefactory.com/file/a1h142c/n/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf (PDF, 6.31 MB, B/W, Clip art on page 79)
http://foo.ca/wp/2009/12/10/kent-hovinds-dissertation-for-doctor-of-philosophy-in-christian-education-full-text/ (TEXT in HTML)


Links to analysis:
http://foo.ca/wp/2009/12/10/unbiased-readability-analysis-of-the-hovind-thesis/
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

Thanks rpenner, funny to see that Wikileaks also picked up on it. Lovely to hear that Hovind found such a novel approach to LaTeXing his graphics in. Has it never occurred to anyone that maybe we should just let Hovind do his thing, take some competition out of the job market? Sometimes you just gotta let a guy and his stupid followers keep f***ing up until they finally realize something's not right with their picture.

Anyhow, sorry to distract from the original topic, which I presume will ultimately lead to some revolutionary new understanding of Dirac spinors and vacuum states (would apparently have to be revolutionary, since it doesn't seem to require any real understanding of math or physics as we know it today).

''I thought superspace was a space of configurations''



The prime example of why you're talking rubbish is your mentioning of superspace. You'll be hard pressed to find an undergraduate course in physics which covers superspace, as its a concept which is not introduced until a student has done quantum field theory and wishes to go further into it, ie supersymmetry.

Last ever time I will listen to you. You're not even well-adversed in the theories to make a correct comment. In the future, I will stick to what I know.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2FPS_cache%2Farxiv% 2Fpdf%2F0902%2F0902.3923v1.pdf&h=99c4bj3M4zkjs-i1NUDxfBwiYCg

I have no problem saying that I am not all knowing and I can be wrong. It doesn't negate my point about your use of it. If you truly understood the things you'd been talking about you'd have immediately been able to explain yourself, instead its taken you weeks to dig up something. You misused notions like 'system', 'operator', 'element' (or mistake one for another), you mention 'superspace' but then make no use of it, don't explain why you mentioned it, it has no place in what you said and is nested within a bunch of other mistakes. Given saying 'superspace' to someone studying theoretical physics will prompt thoughts of supersymmetry I went with that.

Fine, 'superspace' in the sense of 'configuration space' (in which case why not use that term, so as to avoid the confusion, as theoretical physicists do), is a viable concept. Now explain why you made no use of it at all. Why bring it up?

What about all your other errors I listed? Why You expect us to believe you grasp Hilbert spaces and operators and states when you get them confused? Why does a post on entanglement have no mention of any entanglement physics in it? Why is your 'conclusion' nothing but an arbitrary 2 component vector? Why is your 'entangled state' not entangled in the slightest?

You attempt to profess you know a bit about 'linear vector spaces' (you usually use the acronym LVS), yet here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104558&page=8) you can't even write a linear combination of vectors properly!! That's high school stuff, not university. And you can't have done things like electromagnetism, Hilbert spaces, the Dirac equation, spin, etc and not know how to write a sum of vectors properly.


In the future, I will stick to what I know.Which, as this thread, the covariance thread, the electromagnetism thread, the vorticity thread and many more demonstrate, what you know is very very little, no matter how much you try to convince people otherwise.

If you'd understood superspace in the context you used it properly you'd have been able to explain yourself. And even ignoring that this thread is littered with your errors and lies. You just want an excuse to ignore me. So you copy/pasted a relevant concept into your post, doesn't mean your post wasn't garbage.

I knew enough still to know you were wrong. How about that for a catch?

Difference between me and you, is that I am humble in what I know.

Difference between me and you, is that I am humble in what I know.

Another difference is that AN knows and you don't.

Another difference is that AN knows and you don't.

Just a proverbial loophole. He may know more about physics. But that is about all there is in that department.

As I said, I still know enough to know when he is wrong.