Gravigyro-Magnetic Equations with the Angle Between Spin States and a Force Equation

Reiku

02-28-12, 05:25 PM

So let's derive some understanding of spin for this gravimagnetic spin system I will lead us to. We may chose for simplicity that our pointers \psi(\uparrow, \downarrow) may appear in a Hamiltonian of the form

\mathcal{H} = H_0 + \frac{P^2}{2M} + g\mathcal{O}P

Where H_0 is the unperturbed Hamiltonian. Here g is a coupling on the observable denoted as \mathcal{O} . This Hamiltonian however designates to one pointer, so we may choose to write two Hamiltonians if need be.

Usually it is taken that is our observable does not commute with the unperturbed Hamiltonian then we need not normally worry how it evolves during a measurement. This means then we may find a Hamiltonian given as:

\mathcal{H} = g\mathcal{O} P

In fact what we really have here is the Von Neumann Interaction. Since the observable and the momentum act in different Hilbert Spaces one can assume they commute [1].

Instead of measuring any joint observable simultaneously one can do this for each particle seperately and then multiply the results at the end of the trial, as the last paper I linked to explains.

The time evolution operator associated to such an observable can be given as

U(t) = exp [-igt\mathcal{O} P]

Indeed, one common approach to understanding pointer physics is by a coupling induced by a magnetic field along a certain spin directionality \nu(\vec{\sigma}) in fact, according to a derivation later on, we certainly measure an observable given as the form \hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma} and then cleverly work out an angle between the two vectors.

Introducing a new equation, if an initial state were in fact a mixed state with a density matrix \rho then we can express this as some pure states

\sum_a E_a \rho E_a

where E_a is an operator. A linear map of the form

M:\rho \rightarrow \rho'

takes an initial density matrix to a final density matrix. We may make use of this later.

A mixed state \psi with a probability \mathcal{P} the expectation value is

< \hat{A} > = \sum_i \mathcal{P}_i < \psi_i | \hat{A}| \psi_i>

Thus an expectation value can be written with a trace of the density matrix as

Tr(\rho \hat{A}) = < A >

The unit density is given as Tr \rho = 1. The observable can be related to the density matrix as

\bar{\mathcal{O}} = Tr \rho \mathcal{O}

Thus an expectation of such an observable

\bar{\mathcal{O}} = \sum_i < \psi | \mathcal{O}| i > < i |\psi >

Where i denotes the i'th state and the unit matrix reduces this to the expectation

< \psi|\mathcal{O}| \psi >

We can take this calculation in the basis in which \rho was diagonal thus

\sum_i < i| \rho \mathcal{O}| i >

and we can expand our states by introducing j

\sum_{ij} < i |\rho| j > <j|\mathcal{O}|i >
To find the jth state for instance from the above expression, you may set i=j solve to find probability for the jth state as

\sum_j \lambda_j <j| \mathcal{O}|j>

These jth and possible ith states could represent a spin subspace which can be given as a and b. An example could be the following ket vector

\sum_{ab} \psi(a,b)|ab>

in terms of our observable, then solving for the subsystem a and not b then

\sum_{a'b'} <a'b'| \mathcal{O}| \psi(ab)| ab>

which if the observable does not act on (with?) b then this reduced to the identity

Tr\mathcal{O} \rho

through atleast four steps. Thus a can be either (\uparrow, \downarrow) and b can take on the observables (\downarrow, \uparrow)

This was to just give us some flavor of spin mechanics. From here I will be deriving a whole bunch of formulae from well known equations. My task is to find some way to express a relationship between the angle of two spin vectors with a magnetic moment present and finding a relationship to derive force along a certain axis of spin if one chosed, but they will be derived from gravitomagnetic field equations.

Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations

The density of the gravitational field implies the relationship:

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta G_{ij}} = \box (g \phi) [1]

with gravitational coupling in the form of g = \frac{\hbar c}{GM^2} between two particles k \equiv (i,j) which is defined in a set of interactions k \in \mathcal{I}.

Now, a new relationship is given as

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta_{ij} k(\phi_{ij})} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4\theta G_{ij}}

where k(\phi) is a function derived from a metric equation and \eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi_{ij} = 4 \pi \rho k(\phi).

The gravimagnetic field is given as

\frac{2 \vec{\omega} c}{\sqrt{G}} = \Phi

solving for G yields

\frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2} = G

Since eq. [1] has dimensions of density, \frac{M}{\ell^3}, you can obtain a relationship as

4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4\theta G_{ij}} = \nabla^2 \phi

Since \nabla^2 \phi = 4 \pi G \rho

In understanding the dimensions an equation can be given as

\4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\rho = \nabla^2 \phi

and we already know what \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4\theta G_{ij}} is, it is the density \box \phi so we can begin to express these equations in relativistic terms.

Eq [1] can be gives as

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \box \phi

which means the full General Relativistic version of

\box \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}

is

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

This means our final equation can in theory describe gravitomagnetic effects. In hindsight, the variables at work may describe the density of a particle due to gravimagnetic charges. Mass is afterall a charge as well and electromagnetic mass theories have existed for a long time. Charge in our current theory are the coefficients of the Lie Algebra's.

Indeed, we may even derive a different relationship

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}

Cancelling the 4\theta on both sides then rearranging yields

\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{ G_{ij}}k(\phi)

But a full interpretation or implications of this equation ellude me.

Now if we take the dot product the unit vector \hat{n} with our angular term in eq.[4] (which is a process that calculates spin along a certain axis x^{i}), then to this multiply this with a column vector we shall gives as \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix} then we end up with the following equation:

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}}((\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \vec{\theta}_{ij} \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

This single equation essentially describes the density of the gravitational field strength whilst the seperation between the particles, given an (i,j)-notation has a spin along a certain axis.

If we use a notation that expresses magnetic moments of the particles along the axes

\mu = \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) = \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}

Then plugging in this new definition, the equation becomes a gravimagnetic spin equation

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \mu(\vec{\theta}_{ij}) = \rho

The magnetic part is the measure of the particles magnetic moments along the axes in question. If you wish to describe only one particles' gravimagnetic spin relationship just decompose the equation for i and j seperately.

So we can place a magnetic moment coefficient to the equation we just derived

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}}(\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \mu(\vec{\theta}_{ij}) \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

We usually say that

(\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \mu(\theta_{ij})

would calculate the angle between two spin vectors and would look like

\frac{1+ cos\theta_{ij}}{2}

so what you really have

(\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \mu(\frac{1+ cos\theta_{ij}}{2})

Now I am going to derive a force equation along a certain spin axis with a magnetic moment present. The force between two particles can be given as

F_{ij} = -\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}}\hat{n}_{ij}

This specific equation will be useful as it contains a unit vector \hat{n}_{ij} where r_{ij} calculates the distance between two particles i and j respectively.

I therefore present a new form of this equation as I came to the realization that squaring everything would yield

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

Thus we have derived our force equation compensation for a magnetic moment along the spin axis.

Final Thoughts

It has been comforting to come across a paper which seems to take the idea of a quantum Coriolis Field seriously http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.3788.pdf - of course Motz however never actually called it a quantum coriolis field, but you certainly infer that from his calculations in his paper, ''On the quantization of mass.''

The Coriolis effect for a rotating shell of matter generates inside of itself a field called the Coriolis Force.

It will be taken for now to assume that particles are not truely pointlike particles, that this seemed to have been the route we have taken because it was ''easier'' to deal with.

It goes to say, even for a particle, there must be a small ''twisting effect'' of the gravitational field which could be deemed negligable by General Relativistic effects.

As small as frame-dragging would be for particles, the idea of gravitomagnetic forces for a particle as a rotating sphere may have interesting relationships.
For instance, gravitmagnetism allows bodies to exchange energy in the form of coupling external gravitomagnetic fields niether would they ever undergo a direct collision, though normally in QM we never tend to think of shoving two particle into the same location, in fact the more you try and do this the more energy you require.

It seems that the more I read on this subject, there is some evidence that gravitomagnetic forces might be noticable around water molecules Gravitomagnetism . If this can be extended to particles, I wonder the true implications. In the work so far however, I have entertained the idea of treating mass like a quantization of charge. Charge is simply the coefficients of the Lie Algebra's on the theory.

I want to see mass and charge as ''being the dimensions'' spoke about contained inside of a particle presumably begin to treat particles with a classical radius \frac{e^2}{mc^2}. I don't like the idea of thinking particle's as having no dimensions but still possessing charge and mass, especially since your usual standard definition of mass requires some volume to define the density of an object. In fact I propose that there is unique limit on experimentation and what information we can get from particles. With current technology, mostly by studying particle collisions we are left believing that particles are pointlike objects. I just argue they are so incredibly small, yet still being spheres, that there sizes in experiments look like they are as if they are pointlike. It puts me in mind of the Weyl Limit, where Neutrino's may be considered massless - they have such a ridiculously small mass anyway that you may treat them like massless radiation. Along the same lines, particles are not pointlike, but are so very small that even in experiments today they seem like they act like pointlike particles.

Indeed, in these latter equations I derived, I made sure that a magnetic moment was in there... magnetic moments simply cannot be generated by a pointlike system since a magnetic field can only be generated by an element of electrical current which implies in some dimensions atleast. Three perhaps, or am I too greedy?

References

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~plasma/luennot05/summary_0502.pdf

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aquant-ph%2F0501072

Motz ''On the quantization of mass''

Sciarma ''On the Origin of Inertia''

Reiku

02-28-12, 05:45 PM

my numbering of equations have been messed up because I kept adding more equations, so any references back to equations may not actually correlate to equations in question. For this I apologize.

funkstar

02-29-12, 10:13 AM

So let's derive some understanding of spin for this gravimagnetic spin system I will lead us to.
I see you have not spent your absence thinking things over. What a shame.

Have you thought about seeking psychiatric help?

Reiku

02-29-12, 10:34 AM

I see you have not spent your absence thinking things over. What a shame.

Have you thought about seeking psychiatric help?

Enjoying your little troll? Or do you just like creating situations which resort to nothing more than being stuck in a play pen with rattles?

You don't fool anyone, it is clear you quite resent me being here. You made your feelings clear in the thread you created specifically to degrade me.

Reiku

02-29-12, 10:37 AM

If you do at anytime feel like acting like an adult, would you like to disprove anything I have said. I much believe that you have taken a math course at a higher level than me, so when you would like to integrate some of that knowledge into our discussion, I would much enjoy feedback.

Reiku

02-29-12, 11:34 AM

Incidently, I've spotted a mistake. Just about to get it together.

Reiku

02-29-12, 11:37 AM

My dimensions in these set of equations are wrong, I think I have been lucky enough not to let it effect the rest

Since eq. [1] has dimensions of density, \frac{M}{\ell^3}, you can obtain a relationship as

4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4\theta G_{ij}} = \nabla^2 \phi

Since \nabla^2 \phi = 4 \pi G \rho

Rearranging gives

\4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\nabla^2 \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}

I seem to have got a little confused with my terms. There is a proper way to write this. Just gonna figure it out.

Reiku

02-29-12, 11:39 AM

4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4\theta G_{ij}} = \nabla^2 \phi

This is right I think. It is the next equation which was wrong:

\4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\nabla^2 \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}

Sorry. Gonna try and fix this.

Reiku

02-29-12, 11:41 AM

I arranged it wrong. A confusion as I said. The correct dimensions should be

\4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\rho = \nabla^2 \phi

Reiku

02-29-12, 11:47 AM

It would have ran on to another equation, so the mistake would have carried on atleast in understanding one of these equations:

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \box \phi

which means the full General Relativistic version of

4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega} c^2}{\Phi^2}\nabla^2 \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}

is

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

............................................

Thus the correct way to do this would be

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \box \phi

which means the full General Relativistic version of

\box \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}

is

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

There I think that is right. I will change the OP as well to fit this.

AlphaNumeric

02-29-12, 05:01 PM

I see you have not spent your absence thinking things over. What a shame.

Have you thought about seeking psychiatric help?Strange, I thought exactly the same.

Oh and for those who don't know about quantum mechanics, the first half of Reiku's openning post is essentially a copy and paste (possibly literally) bookwork. Notice how he doesn't say "I'll review the basic definitions for those unfamiliar" or "This is all standard book work but I'll cover it anyway for context". Instead he attempts to give the impression it's his doing. Dishonest. And that's before we even get to the bit which he calls his own, which is more of his usual crap.

Reiku, you really need to learn to do something constructive with your time. You've been banned multiple times for crap and last time it was for passing off stuff which you don't understand as if it's stuff you do and what do you do immediately after the ban is lifted? Repeat the offence.

Either you're a troll or you have psychological issues. Actually, if you've been trolling for almost half a decade then that's a sign you have issues too. Basically your actions only say bad things about you. No one with any familiarity with you or physics thinks you're anything other than a dishonest hack.

Reiku

02-29-12, 05:22 PM

Strange, I thought exactly the same.

I've given up caring what you think.

Continue your accusations and blatent attempts at trying to get me banned or I will leave or better yet, I will just block you.

Reiku, you really need to learn to do something constructive with your time. You've been banned multiple times for crap and last time it was for passing off stuff which you don't understand as if it's stuff you do and what do you do immediately after the ban is lifted? Repeat the offence.

Enough of your accusations. I cited the work which ''you think I am passing off as my own.''

My own work is the derivations of the Force Equation and extra's. That is mine.

Prove otherwise or shut up. You've had me banned twice now for plaigarism. The first time banned for nothing, you linked to work which was mine. The second time you could have just asked which one's I claim are mine.

This time I have cited the work in the beginning. Now, don't try and get me banned a third time for no reason.

Prove it. Explain your accusations.

Either you're a troll or you have psychological issues. .

Oh so your PhD is in psychology now. Interesting.

Reiku

02-29-12, 05:24 PM

Though I must admit myself somewhat flattered you may think some of these equations in the OP are all plaigarised. There must be some element of truth behind them, or they are justified somehow.

Flattered indeed.

AlphaNumeric

02-29-12, 06:23 PM

Prove otherwise or shut up. You've had me banned twice now for plaigarism. The first time banned for nothing, you linked to work which was mine. The second time you could have just asked which one's I claim are mine.In both instances you were passing off as your own understanding things you didn't understand and which you lifted, piece by piece, from elsewhere. For example, the first instance was about neutrino Lagrangians, involving spinor wave function behaviour. In recent discussions you've admitted to not being familiar with concepts which are required understanding before someone can get onto neutrino physics or even Lagrangians. Of course we all knew that before, hence why the plagiarism comment stands, but that's clear and simple evidence against your claims you're doing your own viable work.

As for what is 'yours' and what is bookwork you rarely, if ever, make it clear until you're pressed on it, just like you'll talk loads about some equation you made up until you're pressed on it and then you tell people to ignore it, its the result of a drunken evening. You'll misrepresent things until you're backed into a corner and you have no choice but to change your tune.

This time I have cited the work in the beginning. Now, don't try and get me banned a third time for no reason.

Prove it. Explain your accusations.At no point in the first section of your opening post do you say "This is basic bookwork" or "I'm just going to outline my notation, it's all pretty standard". You give a single citation near the start and it's purely to justify why the operators can be taken to commute.

Oh so your PhD is in psychology now. Interesting.I'm not claiming to have any qualifications or capabilities I don't. I'm familiar with basic human behaviour though and when someone repeatedly lies to the same people, on the same subject and keeps thinking they'll get away with it then something is wrong with them. Or do you think that isn't a sign of something off about such a person?

And you're right, my PhD isn't psychology, it's in physics and hence I can tell the difference between someone parroting things he doesn't understand and someone who understands that of which he speaks. You're obviously the former and every single person here with a physics background holds a similar view.

Though I must admit myself somewhat flattered you may think some of these equations in the OP are all plaigarised. There must be some element of truth behind them, or they are justified somehow.

Flattered indeed. Everything from "A linear map of the form" to "Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations" is a long list of definitions of notation you'll find in every single book or lecture course on quantum mechanics. There's nothing flattering about someone saying "Well done, you managed to find a set of lecture notes and copy out the first few pages. Have a crack your parrot!". Your comment amounts to trolling because you're clearly looking for a rise. You know full well you've copied some things so you're definitely saying something non-wrong but it's like me openning up a German dictionary and copying some words down and saying "Look, I can write German!". You're either being childish for trying to get a rise or you're being a child for believing such a laughably obvious deception and misconstruing of what I said wouldn't be noticed.

Furthermore, as soon as you go 'off script' in the second section it immediately changes. Your "derived" results are all clap trap AGAIN. Seriously, just a quick scan down through your posts there's error after error. Just subtle convoluted ones or signs being dropped (ie acceptable typos), huge glaring mistakes you've made many times before and which someone actually doing relativity would spot. Hell, someone with a working understanding of general relativity would find writing some of those expressions teeth gritting almost by reflex.

You really need to learn to do something constructive with your time. You either have some compulsion to deceive, some need to try to convince others you're not utterly incompetent at physics, or you're just a sad little troll. Neither of them say wonders about you.

Reiku

02-29-12, 06:29 PM

In both instances you were passing off as your own understanding things you didn't understand and which you lifted, piece by piece, from elsewhere. For example, the first instance was about neutrino Lagrangians, involving spinor wave function behaviour. In recent discussions you've admitted to not being familiar with concepts which are required understanding before someone can get onto neutrino physics or even Lagrangians. Of course we all knew that before, hence why the plagiarism comment stands, but that's clear and simple evidence against your claims you're doing your own viable work.

As for what is 'yours' and what is bookwork you rarely, if ever, make it clear until you're pressed on it, just like you'll talk loads about some equation you made up until you're pressed on it and then you tell people to ignore it, its the result of a drunken evening. You'll misrepresent things until you're backed into a corner and you have no choice but to change your tune.

At no point in the first section of your opening post do you say "This is basic bookwork" or "I'm just going to outline my notation, it's all pretty standard". You give a single citation near the start and it's purely to justify why the operators can be taken to commute.

I'm not claiming to have any qualifications or capabilities I don't. I'm familiar with basic human behaviour though and when someone repeatedly lies to the same people, on the same subject and keeps thinking they'll get away with it then something is wrong with them. Or do you think that isn't a sign of something off about such a person?

And you're right, my PhD isn't psychology, it's in physics and hence I can tell the difference between someone parroting things he doesn't understand and someone who understands that of which he speaks. You're obviously the former and every single person here with a physics background holds a similar view.

Everything from "A linear map of the form" to "Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations" is a long list of definitions of notation you'll find in every single book or lecture course on quantum mechanics. There's nothing flattering about someone saying "Well done, you managed to find a set of lecture notes and copy out the first few pages. Have a crack your parrot!". Your comment amounts to trolling because you're clearly looking for a rise. You know full well you've copied some things so you're definitely saying something non-wrong but it's like me openning up a German dictionary and copying some words down and saying "Look, I can write German!". You're either being childish for trying to get a rise or you're being a child for believing such a laughably obvious deception and misconstruing of what I said wouldn't be noticed.

Furthermore, as soon as you go 'off script' in the second section it immediately changes. Your "derived" results are all clap trap AGAIN. Seriously, just a quick scan down through your posts there's error after error. Just subtle convoluted ones or signs being dropped (ie acceptable typos), huge glaring mistakes you've made many times before and which someone actually doing relativity would spot. Hell, someone with a working understanding of general relativity would find writing some of those expressions teeth gritting almost by reflex.

You really need to learn to do something constructive with your time. You either have some compulsion to deceive, some need to try to convince others you're not utterly incompetent at physics, or you're just a sad little troll. Neither of them say wonders about you.

Now you're making things up, shall you just link that work of mine and let other people see what it says????

I clearly state in my work that this is basically an extension of Tsao Changs work. I had extended the idea of the proper mass for a dirac theory and extended it for a Higgs Field as well. Niether the Dirac Thoery nor the Higgs Field cannot be my work. You are trying to say I plaigarised that, which is a load of Hoolah if anyone for one minute thinks I was trying to pass that off as my own. Clearly looking for any reason to ban me. Not only that, you were unaware that work was in fact my own. You never even stated anything close to the reason you have in this post.

As for not being clear, I sure damn will from now on. As you may notice in the OP, I've securly stopped any attempt of you doing this to me again. I am going to be very very careful with you. You want me banned period. You already swayed James into banning me without giving me a proper say. I find that cowardly and unmanly. You should have atleast let me explain it. But as I said, I won't let that happen again.

''"Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations" is a long list of definitions of notation you'll find in every single book or lecture course on quantum mechanics.''

Except you won't find my gravigyro-magnetic equations anywhere in a physics book.

WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT.

Do I really need to block you, seriously?

Reiku

02-29-12, 06:31 PM

And you're the troll for trying to tailor a post into something which it is not. You are infamous for it. You think you know it all, when you don't. Atleast I'll admit I need to learn more and I will continue learning to my death.

AlphaNumeric

02-29-12, 06:59 PM

Now you're making things up, shall you just link that work of mine and let other people see what it says????

I clearly state in my work that this is basically an extension of Tsao Changs work. I had extended the idea of the proper mass for a dirac theory and extended it for a Higgs Field as well. Niether the Dirac Thoery nor the Higgs Field cannot be my work. You are trying to say I plaigarised that, which is a load of Hoolah if anyone for one minute thinks I was trying to pass that off as my own. Clearly looking for any reason to ban me. Not only that, you were unaware that work was in fact my own. You never even stated anything close to the reason you have in this post.You're not even reading what I'm posting. I just explained that you have shown, even admitted, that you don't understand concepts which are required understanding to do that sort of work. As such presenting anything of that sort as something which is viable and which you understand is dishonest. Mashing together things other people have said but which you don't understand and saying "This is my work and I understand this stuff" is parroting and passing other things other people explain as your own.

You did it with your discussion with James. You were clearly parroting Susskind, right down to the dubious notation. You were plagiarising Susskind by passing off his explanations as your own.

As for not being clear, I sure damn will from now on. As you may notice in the OP, I've securly stopped any attempt of you doing this to me again.You make it sound like this is the first time its happened.

You want me banned period. I don't think you contribute anything and worse, you contribute utter nonsense which you claim is something close to physics.

You already swayed James into banning me without giving me a proper say. I find that cowardly and unmanly. You should have atleast let me explain it. But as I said, I won't let that happen again.James is a grown man, he can make up his own mind. I've had no PM interactions with him and in threads where you've been the subject I've been one of many people giving their opinion.

As for explaining things, I regularly give you the opportunity to step up and demonstrate your knowledge. You never do. Likewise James challenged you to do some questions 1st years would find easy and you failed.

''"Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations" is a long list of definitions of notation you'll find in every single book or lecture course on quantum mechanics.''

Except you won't find my gravigyro-magnetic equations anywhere in a physics book.

WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT.Now you really are trolling. You've clipped off the start of the sentence and thus utterly altered it's meaning. I said Everything from "A linear map of the form" to "Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations" is a long list of definitions of notation you'll find in every single book or lecture course on quantum mechanics. ". In order words all lines between the text 'A linear map of the form' and the text 'Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations' is a long list of definitions. I'd also said "The first half of the opening post", which should have given you a hint. I then also said "Furthermore, as soon as you go 'off script' in the second section it immediately changes.". The second half being the 'derivations' you give.

Most people would have the sense and honesty not to cut off the start of a sentence when it clearly results in a radically different meaning and then get irate about it.

Do I really need to block you, seriously?Do you think that'll stop me pointing out your mistakes?

I notice you didn't respond to my comment about your 'derived work' is nonsense and makes massive fundamental errors. Go on, I'll give you a chance. Can you give me an example? Here's a hint, it undermines everything you've done. Come up, here's another chance for you to step up.

And you're the troll for trying to tailor a post into something which it is not. You are infamous for it. You think you know it all, when you don't. Atleast I'll admit I need to learn more and I will continue learning to my death. I've repeatedly said I don't think I know it all. I understand you want to paint me as some egotistical megalomaniac exerting his will on the admin but I'm not. I'm confident in what I know, what I can demonstrate I know, what I have credentials for, what I do as my career and you make the mistake (repeatedly) of making crap up about precisely the sort of things I know about. I don't claim to know all about neutrino physics but I know you don't know much of any of it. I don't claim to know quantum mechanics inside out but I've a working understanding of it and I've even taught, giving me experience spotting bullshitters who are trying to wing it by spewing buzzwords and random equations. I am constantly trying to learn more. At work I have a huge stack of papers I am currently working through, as well as several books on related topics. I read textbooks for fun, rather than reading fiction.

You say "I'll admit I need to learn more" but you don't actually try to learn things properly. You do the intellectual equivalent of putting on a white coat and saying "I'm a physicist!". Buzzwords and LaTeX does not a physicist make. If you were really trying to learn this stuff then in the 4+ years since you and I crossed paths you'd have learnt basic calculus and vectors and linear algebra. They are required for any kind of physics and introductory courses/books/lecture notes simple and short. You claim to put 4 hours a day into this stuff, which is more than plenty of university students, yet you learn nothing. You couldn't even do James's questions properly, despite them being something a half asleep 1st year should manage. You don't realise just how blatent your bull is, because you've never been in a proper competitive environment on this stuff, hence your laughable claim you could easily handle undergrad material with all your understanding. You couldn't even understand a sinusoidal function James asked you about, yet you make claims about wave equations for spinors and the Dirac operator (plus in this thread)!

Don't try to paint yourself as some intellectually honest open minded person just trying to expand their understanding, you've been selling snake oil far too long for anyone to buy that. Your track record is against you. Hell, this very thread is against you, given the fundamental problems in your 'results', which you seem oblivious to. I don't have to 'tailor' posts, your posts are damning enough just as they are for anyone familiar with your game. If you were truly open minded and wanting to learn you'd listen to corrections, not just repeat the same mistakes hoping people will stop pointing them out.

Can't you find something more fulfilling to do with your time? Pick up a sport, join a band, go to art lessons, help a charity or actually open a physics textbook and read it properly. Of course the main one would get get a job if you don't have one.

Reiku

02-29-12, 07:24 PM

You're not even reading what I'm posting. I just explained that you have shown, even admitted, that you don't understand concepts which are required understanding to do that sort of work. As such presenting anything of that sort as something which is viable and which you understand is dishonest. Mashing together things other people have said but which you don't understand and saying "This is my work and I understand this stuff" is parroting and passing other things other people explain as your own.

You did it with your discussion with James. You were clearly parroting Susskind, right down to the dubious notation. You were plagiarising Susskind by passing off his explanations as your own.

You make it sound like this is the first time its happened.

I don't think you contribute anything and worse, you contribute utter nonsense which you claim is something close to physics.

James is a grown man, he can make up his own mind. I've had no PM interactions with him and in threads where you've been the subject I've been one of many people giving their opinion.

As for explaining things, I regularly give you the opportunity to step up and demonstrate your knowledge. You never do. Likewise James challenged you to do some questions 1st years would find easy and you failed.

Now you really are trolling. You've clipped off the start of the sentence and thus utterly altered it's meaning. I said Everything from "A linear map of the form" to "Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations" is a long list of definitions of notation you'll find in every single book or lecture course on quantum mechanics. ". In order words all lines between the text 'A linear map of the form' and the text 'Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations' is a long list of definitions. I'd also said "The first half of the opening post", which should have given you a hint. I then also said "Furthermore, as soon as you go 'off script' in the second section it immediately changes.". The second half being the 'derivations' you give.

Most people would have the sense and honesty not to cut off the start of a sentence when it clearly results in a radically different meaning and then get irate about it.

Do you think that'll stop me pointing out your mistakes?

I notice you didn't respond to my comment about your 'derived work' is nonsense and makes massive fundamental errors. Go on, I'll give you a chance. Can you give me an example? Here's a hint, it undermines everything you've done. Come up, here's another chance for you to step up.

I've repeatedly said I don't think I know it all. I understand you want to paint me as some egotistical megalomaniac exerting his will on the admin but I'm not. I'm confident in what I know, what I can demonstrate I know, what I have credentials for, what I do as my career and you make the mistake (repeatedly) of making crap up about precisely the sort of things I know about. I don't claim to know all about neutrino physics but I know you don't know much of any of it. I don't claim to know quantum mechanics inside out but I've a working understanding of it and I've even taught, giving me experience spotting bullshitters who are trying to wing it by spewing buzzwords and random equations. I am constantly trying to learn more. At work I have a huge stack of papers I am currently working through, as well as several books on related topics. I read textbooks for fun, rather than reading fiction.

You say "I'll admit I need to learn more" but you don't actually try to learn things properly. You do the intellectual equivalent of putting on a white coat and saying "I'm a physicist!". Buzzwords and LaTeX does not a physicist make. If you were really trying to learn this stuff then in the 4+ years since you and I crossed paths you'd have learnt basic calculus and vectors and linear algebra. They are required for any kind of physics and introductory courses/books/lecture notes simple and short. You claim to put 4 hours a day into this stuff, which is more than plenty of university students, yet you learn nothing. You couldn't even do James's questions properly, despite them being something a half asleep 1st year should manage. You don't realise just how blatent your bull is, because you've never been in a proper competitive environment on this stuff, hence your laughable claim you could easily handle undergrad material with all your understanding. You couldn't even understand a sinusoidal function James asked you about, yet you make claims about wave equations for spinors and the Dirac operator (plus in this thread)!

Don't try to paint yourself as some intellectually honest open minded person just trying to expand their understanding, you've been selling snake oil far too long for anyone to buy that. Your track record is against you. Hell, this very thread is against you, given the fundamental problems in your 'results', which you seem oblivious to. I don't have to 'tailor' posts, your posts are damning enough just as they are for anyone familiar with your game. If you were truly open minded and wanting to learn you'd listen to corrections, not just repeat the same mistakes hoping people will stop pointing them out.

Can't you find something more fulfilling to do with your time? Pick up a sport, join a band, go to art lessons, help a charity or actually open a physics textbook and read it properly. Of course the main one would get get a job if you don't have one.

What do you mean, it cannot be done? Tsao Chang modified the Dirac Equation for Tachyonic Neutrino's. Now you're not making sense. All I did was add to his work.

''Everything from "A linear map of the form" to "Deriving our Gravimagnetic Spin-Field Equations" is a long list of definitions of notation you'll find in every single book or lecture course on quantum mechanics. ". ''

Oh that is what you meant. Well actually, I've seen it standard to explain some normal mechanics before inviting your own. Geeze, Everett the third did it on his dissitation for a global wave function, and his paper was over 50 pages long and a great deal of that was just recited preliminary equations. This is all I have done above, and I admitted to it.

''James is a grown man, he can make up his own mind. I've had no PM interactions with him and in threads where you've been the subject I've been one of many people giving their opinion.
''

Well I won't give him any reasons in the future then. What a load of bull, I know someone must have swayed his mind.

'' I understand you want to paint me as some egotistical megalomaniac ''

Do I need to try hard?

'' You couldn't even understand a sinusoidal function James asked you about, yet you make claims about wave equations for spinors and the Dirac operator (plus in this thread)!''

Blatent lie. I know what a sine wave is. I asked James in that thread where the missing variables where, what the numbers are when you plug in their definitions. I am not used to working with equations like

(14N)(17m/s) = then something else

It was unfamiliar to me in that fashion, but that is why James picked it I guess. See, I can be easily overthrown with things like that. I haven't been to university but the questions, as fair as they were, were chosen specifically to challenge me... like that strange notation he had in his classical gravity example and I knew I hadn't seen it before. James admitted that this notation was created just for this class to work out. Well I didn't know that for sure! If it was something the class knew that they hadn't been taught, well I'd say that gave them an unfair advantage, not to mention I stated from the very beginning that you had misrepresented what I said concerning ''i'd fly arguably through the first year''... I never intended that to mean I wouldn't require education, but as per usual, you painted it that way.

Look I am not discussing this any further. Attack my work and not me. If you do it one more time, I will block you and this time it is not a hollow threat.

Reiku

02-29-12, 08:56 PM

''At no point in the first section of your opening post do you say "This is basic bookwork" or "I'm just going to outline my notation, it's all pretty standard". You give a single citation near the start and it's purely to justify why the operators can be taken to commute. ''

Actually, you will see near the end of the first part I say this precisely:

''This was to just give us some flavor of spin mechanics. From here I will be deriving a whole bunch of formulae from well known equations.''

Notice I say, from here I will be ''deriving'', implying I haven't derived anything previous to this. I also said this was to give some flavor of spin mechanics, implying this was stuff you would learn anyway.

From the OP, AN it is clear which work is mine and which isn't. Also that citation covers a large part of the first part. It is actually, pretty standard when you follow through the work. Anyway, I know I didn't want you to reply to this, but I needed to clarify this point.

Balerion

02-29-12, 10:41 PM

This thread makes me wonder how often a poster has to prove they are either unwilling or unable to change their ways before the moderation at this site finally performs the coup de grace.

Reiku

02-29-12, 10:46 PM

This thread makes me wonder how often a poster has to prove they are either unwilling or unable to change their ways before the moderation at this site finally performs the coup de grace.

You don't even know physics. And what, because you are currently having a heated-debate with me, you think you can come in here and try and sway the opinions of who... James?

As alphanumeric said himself, James is a big boy. He can make decisions for himself.

And you comment on me being childish... yet your clearly now diverting time to a thread containing relativity which I bet you can't even understand. I bet you wouldn't even know the relationship

\box \phi = \rho

James R

02-29-12, 11:22 PM

As alphanumeric said himself, James is a big boy. He can make decisions for himself.

Yes, indeed I can.

Here are the "references" you cited in the opening post.

References

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~p...mmary_0502.pdf

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...t-ph%2F0501072

Motz ''On the quantization of mass''

Sciarma ''On the Origin of Inertia''

I checked the first two links, and the papers there have nothing to do with anything you posted, as far as I can tell.

The next two references are incomplete. Are they references to books, papers or what? If they are to books, please include the year of publication and also preferably the publisher and the author(s) initials. If they are to papers, include the journal name, the issue, the year of publication etc. The aim of a reference list is to allow somebody to find the reference you used.

It is not clear which parts of your post are supposed to be original and which parts are not. You appear to mixing your own work with the work of other people, without clearly distinguishing which is which. That in itself is a form of plagiarism. Please be aware that appropriating other people's ideas as your own without acknowledgment is plagiarism, unless those ideas are "common knowledge".

Certainly, reproducing or paraphrasing or cherry-picking some portion of a chapter of a book (e.g. the work of Motz or Sciama, I assume), without CLEARLY acknowledging the source, is plagiarism.

You should explicitly say: "The following results are reproduced from Sciama ... blah blah blah...". Or alternatively, at the start of your post, you could put "This post is in sections. Section 1 is a reproduction of material from Motz's book ... Section 2 is my own work, using Motz as a starting point."

Imagine if I wrote a novel titled "The white whale" by James R, which started like this:

"Once upon a time, I was a sailor who worked on whaling ships. Call me Ishmail. My Captain's name was Captain Ahab. How I met him I will shortly recount..."

And then in the "list of sources" at the back of the book I put "Melville, H., Moby Dick, published by ..." etc.

Have I plagiarised? Answer: yes, I have.

Balerion

02-29-12, 11:31 PM

You don't even know physics. And what, because you are currently having a heated-debate with me, you think you can come in here and try and sway the opinions of who... James?

I have no illusions of swaying James to do anything. I was simply wondering aloud when a moderator would do something about you for good, because clearly you aren't going to change your ways. I trust AN enough to know that when he says you're full of crap, you're full of crap. I can also verify this myself from your BS in the UFO subforum.

As alphanumeric said himself, James is a big boy. He can make decisions for himself.

If you say so.

And you comment on me being childish... yet your clearly now diverting time to a thread containing relativity which I bet you can't even understand. I bet you wouldn't even know the relationship

\box \phi = \rho

I don't claim to know anything about physics. However, knowing that you've been guilty of plagiarism multiple times before, I doubt you have much more of an understanding than I do.

Balerion

02-29-12, 11:31 PM

Yes, indeed I can.

Here are the "references" you cited in the opening post.

I checked the first two links, and the papers there have nothing to do with anything you posted, as far as I can tell.

The next two references are incomplete. Are they references to books, papers or what? If they are to books, please include the year of publication and also preferably the publisher and the author(s) initials. If they are to papers, include the journal name, the issue, the year of publication etc. The aim of a reference list is to allow somebody to find the reference you used.

It is not clear which parts of your post are supposed to be original and which parts are not. You appear to mixing your own work with the work of other people, without clearly distinguishing which is which. That in itself is a form of plagiarism. Please be aware that appropriating other people's ideas as your own without acknowledgment is plagiarism, unless those ideas are "common knowledge".

Certainly, reproducing or paraphrasing or cherry-picking some portion of a chapter of a book (e.g. the work of Motz or Sciama, I assume), without CLEARLY acknowledging the source, is plagiarism.

You should explicitly say: "The following results are reproduced from Sciama ... blah blah blah...". Or alternatively, at the start of your post, you could put "This post is in sections. Section 1 is a reproduction of material from Motz's book ... Section 2 is my own work, using Motz as a starting point."

Imagine if I wrote a novel titled "The white whale" by James R, which started like this:

"Once upon a time, I was a sailor who worked on whaling ships. Call me Ishmail. My Captain's name was Captain Ahab. How I met him I will shortly recount..."

And then in the "list of sources" at the back of the book I put "Melville, H., Moby Dick, published by ..." etc.

Have I plagiarised? Answer: yes, I have.

So do something about it.

Reiku

02-29-12, 11:38 PM

Reiku

02-29-12, 11:42 PM

these are specifically [b]my[b] equations

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta G_{ij}} = \box (g \phi) [1]

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta_{ij} k(\phi_{ij})} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4\theta G_{ij}}

\4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\rho = \nabla^2 \phi

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \box \phi

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}

\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{ G_{ij}}k(\phi)

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}}((\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \vec{\theta}_{ij} \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \mu(\vec{\theta}_{ij}) = \rho

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}}(\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{G_{ij}} \mu(\vec{\theta}_{ij}) \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

Now I cannot be held to blame for being... misty or tenebrous about which equations are mine.

Reiku

03-01-12, 12:26 AM

To this, I would like to add one more derivation that came to me, the quantization of mass given by motz is \sqrt{G}M. To derive this from

\4 \theta \frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}\rho = \nabla^2 \phi

Rearrange

\frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta \rho}

Take the square root then multiply by mass on both sides gives:

\sqrt{\frac{4 \vec{\omega}^2 c^2}{\Phi^2}}M = \sqrt{\frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta \rho}} M

= \sqrt{G}M

khan

03-01-12, 03:53 AM

these are specifically my equations

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta G_{ij}} = \box (g \phi) [1]

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta_{ij} k(\phi_{ij})} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4\theta G_{ij}}

Reiku, is it legally acceptable to combine your \mu \nu's and ij's like that? Is that an arc-length in the denominator of your above quoted equations? :shrug::D

Those might be some extremely advanced equations or they could be total hogwash, I don't know right now but I am definitely curious :cool:

...

origin

03-01-12, 09:40 AM

Reiku

03-01-12, 02:04 PM

Reiku, is it legally acceptable to combine your \mu \nu's and ij's like that? Is that an arc-length in the denominator of your above quoted equations? :shrug::D

Those might be some extremely advanced equations or they could be total hogwash, I don't know right now but I am definitely curious :cool:

...

Well, the subscripts ij are in fact markers in a metric, they calculate the distance between particles. This is why in the force equation we have the force measured between two particles as r_{ij}. This notation has nothing to do with relativity.

The \mu \nu notation does.

Reiku

03-01-12, 02:07 PM

Good now we know which ones don't make any sense.;)

Assuming my dimensions are correct and I haven't *******-up anywhere, they all make sense. For instance, you could perform a little trigonometry on the 8th equation for instance, or measure the force along a certain axis and the forces between the particles (being classically treated of course, as spheres.)

origin

03-01-12, 02:46 PM

The density of the gravitational field implies the relationship:

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta G_{ij}} = \box (g \phi) [1]

Since eq. [1] has dimensions of density, \frac{M}{\ell^3}, you can obtain a relationship as

I find extremely odd that you have such indepth equations and concepts but nothing you have ever done in any of these threads goes beyond basic algebra - weird, huh?

Quick question I looked at the above equations and I have a question. So are you saying the density of a graviational field is mass/volume?

Reiku

03-01-12, 03:16 PM

I find extremely odd that you have such indepth equations and concepts but nothing you have ever done in any of these threads goes beyond basic algebra - weird, huh?

Quick question I looked at the above equations and I have a question. So are you saying the density of a graviational field is mass/volume?

Well that depends on what we consider as basic algebra. I do believe there is some matrix mechanics in there as well. However, sometimes you can find new relationships by tangling different relationships together. Sure, some of my operations are basic. You won't find any differentiation in there, or integrals. I'm sure if I sat and fiddled around with the equations for some time, I sure could try and come up with some different mathematical proposals. But I wanted to keep it simple like this becuase I felt the relationships where simple enough to be understood.

Anyway, yeah. The gravitational field strength is given by the (standard) equation as

\box \phi = \rho

Which means that a mass would depend on the field strength where we have the d'Alembertian Operator on the left (the box thing).

origin

03-01-12, 03:23 PM

Well that depends on what we consider as basic algebra. I do believe there is some matrix mechanics in there as well. However, sometimes you can find new relationships by tangling different relationships together. Sure, some of my operations are basic. You won't find any differentiation in there, or integrals. I'm sure if I sat and fiddled around with the equations for some time, I sure could try and come up with some different mathematical proposals. But I wanted to keep it simple like this becuase I felt the relationships where simple enough to be understood.

Anyway, yeah. The gravitational field strength is given by the (standard) equation as

\box \phi = \rho

Which means that a mass would depend on the field strength where we have the d'Alembertian Operator on the left (the box thing).

Huh, the mass changes with field strength?

It seems rather odd that the density of the gravitational field is mass/vol. Electirc field density is j/m^3.

Reiku

03-01-12, 03:39 PM

Huh, the mass changes with field strength?

It seems rather odd that the density of the gravitational field is mass/vol. Electirc field density is j/m^3.

The best way to view the equation is that the gravitational field strength changes proportionally with mass. This makes sense.

Put more mass in an area then you must be increasing the field strength, (or density in this case). The man who derived that equation was Gunnar Nordstrom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Nordstr%C3%B6m

AlphaNumeric

03-01-12, 03:50 PM

these are specifically [b]my[b] equations

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta G_{ij}} = \box (g \phi) [1]
So it's your equation but you're giving a reference?

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi_{ij}}{4 \theta_{ij} k(\phi_{ij})} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi_{ij}}{4\theta G_{ij}} Index structure is complete nonsense.

\frac{\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi}{4\theta k(\phi)} = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{4 \theta G_{ij}}Index structure is complete nonsense.

\eta^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} \phi = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{ G_{ij}}k(\phi)Index structure is complete nonsense.

I also suspect you made the mistake of thinking that if G_{ij}M^{ij} = \phi then M^{ij} = \frac{\phi}{G_{ij}}, ie that you just divide each side by G_{ij}. That isn't how tensors work at all, a mistake so cataclysmally bad it, once again, completely undermines any claim you make to understand anything university level. The problems persist in all the other expressions you give.

Now I cannot be held to blame for being... misty or tenebrous about which equations are mine.No, you can be blamed for repeatedly posting mathematically nonsense expressions while claiming you're doing something which you understand and which is viable, despite me giving you the chance to review what you've said for a fundamental mistake. That was the mistake. You not only missed it, you repeated it many times.

Thanks for proving my point about you.

Oh hang on, I just scrolled down in the thread! You have been wonderful enough to CONFIRM your mistake!

Well, the subscripts ij are in fact markers in a metric, they calculate the distance between particles. This is why in the force equation we have the force measured between two particles as r_{ij}. This notation has nothing to do with relativity.

The \mu \nu notation does.Well done, you don't know how to use a metric, something fundamental to relativity, including its uses in quantum field theory. If you have something like G_{ij}M^{ij} = \phi then you cannot say M^{ij} = \frac{\phi}{G_{ij}} because G_{ij}M^{ij} is a single number, it's the trace of G multiplied by M, Try it with arbitary 2x2 matrices if you don't believe me. Even if you have G_{ij}M^{jk} = N^{k}_{i} then to get G on the other side you have to multiply through by its inverse, G^{ij} such that G^{ij}G_{jk}M^{kl} = G^{ij}N^{l}_{j}, which becomes \delta^{i}_{k}M^{kl} = G^{ij}N^{l}_{j} which simplies to M^{il} = G^{ij}N^{l}_{j}.

This is the definition of how to use the metric. You cannot do anything in relativity if you don't know how to use the metric. Hell, you can't do anything in pretty much physics if you can't do matrix multiplication and know how to use matrix inverses.

I'd say that puts a fork in this thread. Reiku's been short with the truth, he's posted loads of mistakes he doesn't notice even when told "You've made a big mistake, look again", he repeated those mistakes and now he's nailed his colours to the mast and had his complete lack of understanding and his deep dishonesty exposed.

Lock the thread and let's all go home.

Reiku

03-01-12, 03:52 PM

Reiku

03-01-12, 03:54 PM

and no... that [1] was actually when I started numbering my equations. It's not a reference. If the ij notation has put you off AN, stop thinking I am doing anything in the way of tensor calculus. They were there on the variables where the strength between the two particles becomes significant. They are doing nothing more than reminding the reader... they are not performing any kind of influence on the [basic] algebra being performed.

AlphaNumeric

03-01-12, 05:15 PM

I am not doing this in the manner you are Alphanumeric. I am using ij notation as markers. They are not computing anything in any manner you are relating this to.

So no. It doesn't put a fork in anything.Doesn't fly. You use the i,j notation as indices on the \sigma_{ij} Pauli matrix object so you're using G_{ij} as an array of values and they work by matrix algebra. My point stands, you haven't even done basic matrix algebra properly. Plus the index notation is still nonsense and inconsistent. It's known as the '3 eyed monster', where you repeat the same index more than twice and thus make the expression ambiguous and thus nonsense.

If the notation has put you off AN, stop thinking I am doing anything in the way of tensor calculus. They were there on the variables where the strength between the two particles becomes significant. They are doing nothing more than reminding the reader... they are not performing any kind of influence on the [basic] algebra being performed. If that's your excuse then you use the same notation in different ways in the same sequence of expressions without explaining yourself. Furthermore, despite the fact the OP openned with default bookwork for half of it your excuse means you immediately jump into a non-standard use of a standard notation, right down to standard objects like \sigma_{ij}, without explaining yourself. That's a big no no.

Besides, it's not like your equations go anywhere. In some cases all you're doing it stating identities, akin to saying if A = XYZ then BA = BXYZ. That's all you're doing with the \theta_{ij}, \hat{n}\cdot \sigma_{ij} objects, just writing them in terms of one another and then expanding out the second term as its matrix expression. Even if you hadn't botched all the algebraic formalism and managed to explain your notation you still accomplish nothing, It's your standard thing, you spew out a bunch of equations which amount to spinning your wheels and say "Look, I've got Gravigyro-Magnetic Equations with the Angle Between Spin States and a Force Equation ! I is a well good physicist!". No, you're just a dishonest hack who thinks if he copies enough identifies and expressions from other sources, jam them together and perhaps changes a symbol here and there to try to hide the fact he's copying things then perhaps it'll magically convince people he's not wasting his time.

Other people have weighed into the thread, with similar less than stellar comments about you. No one buys what you're doing. If you were making an honest effort to learn but were just thick as 2 short planks then people would have time for you but instead you're being dishonest as well as being not too bright so people get sick of it. I don't have to lobby James or anyone else to try to convince them you're dishonest, it's clear to any reader from our 'little exchanges' you're dishonest. There's no conspiracy against you, people reach their conclusions about you all by themselves. I chime in to make sure you don't sucker in any new people because clearly when you're left to your own devices you'll pile BS on BS, just as you did with your equation which you retroactively said "It's just a drunken evenings nonsense, don't pay any attention to it". You then went on to post half a dozen times about it, until you were called on it again. You're actively trying to deceive people and I'll point that out. If you put me on ignore I'll continue to point it out, you'll just have no chance to defend yourself. Though saying that even when I give you a chance you can't defend yourself or ever step up.

How about you give yourself a self imposed holiday for a fortnight? That way you can let this thread drop down the forum a bit and then you can start afresh with another thread of you spewing nonsense about some 'result' you've come up with using remedial flawed algebra. It'll at least forgo you having a holiday imposed on you. Go on, see if you've got that self control, see if you can go a whole fortnight without telling a blatantly obvious lie about your knowledge/understanding/'work'.

Reiku

03-01-12, 06:08 PM

Doesn't fly. You use the i,j notation as indices on the \sigma_{ij} Pauli matrix object so you're using G_{ij} as an array of values and they work by matrix algebra. My point stands, you haven't even done basic matrix algebra properly. Plus the index notation is still nonsense and inconsistent. It's known as the '3 eyed monster', where you repeat the same index more than twice and thus make the expression ambiguous and thus nonsense.

If that's your excuse then you use the same notation in different ways in the same sequence of expressions without explaining yourself. Furthermore, despite the fact the OP openned with default bookwork for half of it your excuse means you immediately jump into a non-standard use of a standard notation, right down to standard objects like \sigma_{ij}, without explaining yourself. That's a big no no.

Besides, it's not like your equations go anywhere.

What do you mean it doesn't fly, I explained they where markers long before you came in here and actually looked at the work properly. Then you mistook G_ij for the tensor (which is normally written as) G_mu \nu, not only that, but you obviously had not followed the equations through. If you had, you would have realized I was not referring to tensor analysis on G, but rather it was Newtons Constant.

Secondly, my equation do go somewhere. They effectively measure the force along the axis of spin. I could do more with it all. You certainly haven't sat to see where the equations could go. You never even understood them before you posted.

As for the rest, of your post... pfft... irrelevant **** from yourself again. And you blame others for trolling, the hypocrisy.

Reiku

03-01-12, 06:09 PM

Did you follow any links as well? Do you have motz' paper handy? You would see more relevance as well if you followed the papers linked and went out your way to find motz paper.

Reiku

03-01-12, 06:11 PM

And the ij notation on the matrix is in fact saying you can decompose the equation to suit for particle i or particle j. You think you're right and you are so far from it. Tensor calculus on the head AN!

Reiku

03-01-12, 06:12 PM

I'll tell you what AN, how about if I give some demonstrations of this ''decomposing the equation for particle i and j?''

From now on, I am going to drop the ij notation on all the other values because it seems to have confused the hell out of you.

Reiku

03-01-12, 06:31 PM

I said I would drop the notation on other values, but... some of them need to be expressed this way to get an idea of what is happening

V = \sum^{N-1}_{i=1} \sum^{N}_{i+1} g(r_{ij})

This is a potential.

The force then between two particles can be given as

F_{ij} = - \frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \hat{n}_{ij}

Notice, r_{ij} is simply the distance between i and j, then it becomes noticable that I am using this subscript on values as markers.

Let's decompose some equations for the particles i and j respectively - let's begin with a simple example for the force equation

M_ia_i = \sum^{N}_{j=1, j \ne i} F_{ij}

which describes the motion of particle i and for particle j we have

M_ja_j = \sum^{N}_{i=1, i \ne \j} F_{ij}

As you can see, the ij-notation is doing nothing of the sort of calculations alphanumeric was insinuating.

Let's do it again, this time for the density relationship for the spin along a certain axis:

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{G}((\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{G} \vec{\theta}_{ij} \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

Can be docomposed for i and j as:

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{G}((\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{i}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{G} \vec{\theta}_{i} \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

and

\frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{G}((\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{j}) \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}) = \frac{\nabla^2 \phi}{G} \vec{\theta}_j \rightarrow T_{\mu \nu} \delta^{\mu \nu}

Come to think about it, did you not even ask yourself why in the first part of the OP why I was making the reader accustomed to knowing this notation for particle spins for particles i or j?

Reiku

03-01-12, 06:51 PM

Hell, you can't do anything in pretty much physics if you can't do matrix multiplication.

Hmmm.... Now my memory tells me that James not long ago posted a quetsion to me involving matrix multiplication....

So I call you a flat-out liar in this respect.

Reiku

03-01-12, 09:28 PM

Reiku

03-01-12, 09:30 PM

As soon as you know your angle, you can calculate the original distance r_{ij} in your force equation using some simple trigonometric identities so the equation definately has its uses.

Reiku

03-01-12, 09:35 PM

Oh! And don't forget that you may freely exchange the notations \theta_{nm} and \theta_{ij}. Don't mistake it as a tensor calculation like AN did.

Reiku

03-01-12, 09:49 PM

I've made this statement about the trig a few times I should give a demonstration at least. We may calculate the component:

comp (\hat{m} \hat{n}) = ||\hat{m}|| cos \theta = \hat{n} \cdot \frac{\hat{m}}{||\hat{m}||}

which is how the trigonomentry comes in.

Balerion

03-01-12, 11:46 PM

I think AN pretty much summed this thread up.

Cesspool time.

funkstar

03-02-12, 01:52 AM

Reiku

03-02-12, 02:03 AM

Complete and utter bullshit. No pass.

CRAP?

Susskind... you know that scientist... top scientist... was his teachings... that reallly good scientist, most of us like?

CRAP... go say it to his face lol

Reiku

03-02-12, 02:03 AM

The (standard stuff of course) was his teachings. The rest was my realizations.

Reiku

03-02-12, 02:08 AM

Tell you what Funstar, shall I find the video for you, so you can work out the angle for yourself... you really need to stop being so aggresive. You've clearly demonstrated time and time again you don't even know physics yourself to refute it.

But hold on, I will find it. I have the video link somewhere...

Reiku

03-02-12, 02:29 AM

Well, can't find it right now. There are so many video's of his which is the problem. i've watched and took notes from every one of them... there is well over 30 videos there. But it's only a matter of time. I will find it.

But I still refute your claim it is crap. It certainly isn't if I have learned it off him, which I have because I have ''susskind lecture'' written at the top of it.

khan

03-02-12, 02:54 AM

Are one of these the Susskind lecture you are referring to Reiku? :D

http://www.youtube.com/user/StanfordUniversity/search?query=susskind&view=pl

Walter Lewin has some really helpful lectures too :D

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F688ECB2FF119649

Reiku

03-02-12, 02:56 AM

AlphaNumeric

03-02-12, 04:00 AM

What do you mean it doesn't fly, I explained they where markers long before you came in here and actually looked at the work properly. Then you mistook G_ij for the tensor (which is normally written as) G_mu \nu, not only that, but you obviously had not followed the equations through. If you had, you would have realized I was not referring to tensor analysis on G, but rather it was Newtons Constant.You think \mu,\nu means tensor and i,j doesn't? Clearly you've never done any actual relativity, as the form an index takes is entirely at the authors discretion. Personally I use \mu,\nu to represent 3+1 dimensional coordinates, n,m to mean 6 dimensional coordinates on compact spaces, N,M to mean 9+1 dimensional coordinates and i,j to represent 3 dimensional coordinates. But that's just me, other authors have other preferences.

By saying "A tensor is normally written as G_{\mu\nu} you illustrate how little reading you've done and how completely inexperienced you are. I would guess that you've picked one paper/video to copy stuff from and you think the notation used there is somehow universal. It's a clear sign of how ignorant you are.

As for it being Newton's constant, you would have no need to give it indices. If all terms are multiplied by Newton's constant then you just have an overall factor of G, G_{ij} is meaningless. Again, you're clutching at straws to make excuses for your mistakes. It's as you always do.

As for the rest, of your post... pfft... irrelevant **** from yourself again. And you blame others for trolling, the hypocrisy. This thread, like all your others, is completely disingenuous, pointing that out and pointing out your dishonesty and mistakes isn't trolling. Calling a liar a liar is not something they want to hear but it isn't trolling. The liar being a repeated and deliberate liar is trolling. Why do you think you get banned so often?

Tell you what Funstar, shall I find the video for you, so you can work out the angle for yourself... you really need to stop being so aggresive. You've clearly demonstrated time and time again you don't even know physics yourself to refute it.

But hold on, I will find it. I have the video link somewhere...I know enough physics that you can't try that argument against me and you ignore me too. And your "I'll go find a video!" thing always backfires. It either shows you're just mindlessly copying from someone, as you copied Susskind in your discussion with James, or you're actually mistakenly trying to paraphrase source material you don't understand.

Reiku

03-02-12, 04:01 AM

You think \mu,\nu means tensor and i,j doesn't? Clearly you've never done any actual relativity, as the form an index takes is entirely at the authors discretion. Personally I use \mu,\nu to represent 3+1 dimensional coordinates, n,m to mean 6 dimensional coordinates on compact spaces, N,M to mean 9+1 dimensional coordinates and i,j to represent 3 dimensional coordinates. But that's just me, other authors have other preferences.

huh?

I said ''normally written''. Not ''is written''.

I know it's the morning AN, but please, open those eyes.

Reiku

03-02-12, 04:04 AM

AN

''This thread, like all your others, is completely disingenuous, pointing that out and pointing out your dishonesty and mistakes isn't trolling. Calling a liar a liar is not something they want to hear but it isn't trolling. The liar being a repeated and deliberate liar is trolling. Why do you think you get banned so often? ''

You're behaviour towards me recently is more aggressive and progressively odd. I don't read my thread and it says ''liar'', unless I have said something which presents me as such. I haven't.

I have used quantum mechanics as I have been taught, I've taught myself. My force equation (I've demonstrated above) had some good applications, such as being able to calculate the distance between two particles using trigonometric identities. It calculates the force between particles and the local force along a spin axis.

Reiku

03-02-12, 04:06 AM

''I know enough physics that you can't try that argument against me and you ignore me too. And your "I'll go find a video!" thing always backfires. It either shows you're just mindlessly copying from someone, as you copied Susskind in your discussion with James, or you're actually mistakenly trying to paraphrase source material you don't understand. ''

oh... mmm... you're referring to the time I said about physics having ''something to say about perpendicular and orthogonality.''

I was right. I just never specified it was pointers it spoke about. My definitions where correct though, whilst people like cpt Bork seemed to not even recognize this literature, saying I was making things up, or something along those effects.

Reiku

03-02-12, 04:07 AM

... and I will find the video. I have come to one that is close in nature to it, so it cannot be far. All I do is copy as I see it being taught. You cannot get more accurate than that.

Balerion

03-02-12, 05:50 AM

All I do is copy

That sounds about right.

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:01 AM

Ok, so why did I create the force along an axis equation?

I'm going to explain some of the mathematics of the matrices. It's pretty much standard in QM to calculate (\sigma \cdot \hat{n}) gives you a four by four matrix, it is also a dot product of the form n_1\sigma + n_2 \sigma_2 + n_3\sigma_3. The matrix is

\begin{bmatrix}\ (n_3) & (n_{-}) \\ (n_{+}) & (-n_3) \end{bmatrix}

Some definitions of these entries are

n_1 - in_2 = n_{-}

n_1 + in_2 = n_{+}

and

(\sigma + \hat{n})^2 =1

we can have

n_{+}n_{-} = n_{1}^{2} + n_{2}^{2}

and

+n_{3}^{2} - n_{3}^{2} = 1-n_{3}^{2}

This is all standard stuff. Now draw two lines perpendicular to each other in unit length, one might as what is the probability that \hat{m} is + and \hat{n} is -, well, knowing that |\sigma \cdot n = 1> then the probability is

|<\sigma \cdot m = 1 | \sigma \cdot n = 1>|^2

Now

\begin{bmatrix}\ (n_3) & (n_{-}) \\ (n_{+}) & (-n_3) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}

this is just

\begin{bmatrix}\ 1 \\ z \end{bmatrix}

and

n_3 + n_z = 1, thus n_z = 1-n_3 then z= \frac{1-n_3}{n} thus

\begin{bmatrix}\ 1 \\ z \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}\ 1 \\ \frac{1-n_z}{n} \end{bmatrix}

We are actually on our way to calculate the angle between the two unit vectors. Well, actually... there is quite a bit of rough and tumble with some algebra first. I am going to skip about 5 operations to get

= \begin{bmatrix}\ \sqrt{\frac{1+n_3}{2}} \\ \frac{1-n_3}{n_{-}} \sqrt{\frac{1 + n_3}{2} \end{bmatrix}

which gives

= \frac{2}{1+n_{3}}

I skip it because it is very tedious with a lot of matrix latex involved. Yuk.

Anyway, the dot product of n and m is given with a constant

1+ n_1m_1 + n_2 m_2 + n_3m_3

which produces the angle between the vectors

\frac{1 + n \cdot m}{2} = \frac{1+ cos \theta_{nm}}{2}

and Viola, that is that part finished. Whilst this is standard, the new relationship of the force and the angle relationship presented itself to me when understanding that

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij}) = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}

could in principle be calculated because the force equation:

F_{ij} = -\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}}\hat{n}_{ij}

Had the unit vector in it. It just goes that the relationship was allowed to be given as such.

It's driving me insane looking for this, so I'll just add more from my own work and show you another work which is (very similar) to deriving the angle in respects to the approach I gave; in fact, we will start with the latter. I did a search and found the following:

usimg the projection of both we can draw the vectors and we can find the angles between them

i was just wondering if there was a way of doing this using \vec{L} \cdot \vec{S}

L \cdot S = |L| |S| \cos \theta

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=164262

As you can see, he finds a quick way to derive the angle (obviously my case was a by a far an in-depth calculation for the angle between the spins in a quantum sense, since we are specifically using pauli matrices, but the same mathematical principle is behind it.

Even though I have had problems finding the video, I can justify many of the terms. Hopefully I won't need to justify things like (\hat{n} \cdot \sigma) but maybe things like:

\begin{bmatrix}\ (n_3) & (n_{-}) \\ (n_{+}) & (-n_3) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}

Well draw your attention please to this following paper; took me a while even to find a relevant paper to all this work, but after typing in enough buzzwords, I did find one:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/aqp/handout_spin.pdf

You will see that matrix in there as well, and it properly justifies the column

\begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}

Indeed then that]

(\sigma \cdot n)^2 = 1

Is true. So as you can see, I have found a very relevant paper to all this stuff. Sure I cannot find any citations proving the angle-derivation, I won't be able to do that until I find the video, but surely by now the work is beginning to look more credible. Funkstar was well out of his depth in coming in here foolishly as branding it as crap, as he clearly doesn't understand any of it.

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:03 AM

In fact, I think this citation http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/aqp/handout_spin.pdf will help me develope new ways of understanding the range of possibilities for my equation. I've only had a quick glance over it and already I am learning a great deal more about these processes.

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:11 AM

\begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}

So as you will see, this is really a ''linear yet general state of spin''.

Let me refresh your memory on the force equation

F_{ij} = -\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}}\hat{n}_{ij}

This means if you involve spin like I had as a dot product on the unit vector and square everything you really have

F_{ij} = -\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}}\hat{n}_{ij}

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

= (-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 \mathbf{I}

= F_{ij}^{2}

Where of course, the 1 before is simply the identity matrix thus I have used this notation instead because it is more recognizable.

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:14 AM

Keep in mind also that

\alpha* \alpha + \beta* \beta = 1

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:19 AM

So you may also derive

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2\begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2\begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}^2

And it still spits out, I think if I have read this right

= (-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 \mathbf{I}

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:39 AM

A different insight, but not far off my own notation for magnetic moments along a spin given before as \mu(\sigma \cdot n), the gyromagnetic ratio (perfect name to the title), is used in the equations in that specific link.

Thus we can now see our equations in a completely new light, which I will write up now in the following post.

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:43 AM

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}}\frac{g e}{2Mc} (\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ g \gamma(n_3) & g \gamma(n_{-}) \\ g \gamma(n_{+}) & g \gamma(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:45 AM

Where g is the g-factor and the gyromagnetic ratio is \gamma = \frac{e}{2Mc}, should have mentioned it.

khan

03-02-12, 01:19 PM

\begin{bmatrix}\ (n_3) & (n_{-}) \\ (n_{+}) & (-n_3) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}\ \alpha \\ \beta \end{bmatrix}

I have only been studying classical physics and general relativity so far because Feynman said nobody understands quantum mechanics. Your equation is different than the one in the spin handout pdf you linked to.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/aqp/handout_spin.pdf

Can you explain all the terms in your equation in the quote to me? Pretend I am a time traveler from 1915, before the era of 1920's physics :D

AlphaNumeric

03-02-12, 05:31 PM

huh?

I said ''normally written''. Not ''is written''.

I know it's the morning AN, but please, open those eyes. So you admit your excuse was completely invalid, you're aware it isn't a blanket statement? So why did you make it? Once again you clutch at straws and only admit your inaccuracies when you're called on them.

You're behaviour towards me recently is more aggressive and progressively odd.Progressively odd? Please explain how it is odd? I've outlined your mistakes and pointed out your dishonesty. You're the one repeatedly lying, knowingly, to people who openly say "We don't believe you". That would be 'progressively odd' if it were progressive. It just seems to be who you are.

As for being aggressive, I'm tired of your shit.

I have used quantum mechanics as I have been taught, I've taught myself. Then you have a terrible teacher.

''I know enough physics that you can't try that argument against me and you ignore me too. And your "I'll go find a video!" thing always backfires. It either shows you're just mindlessly copying from someone, as you copied Susskind in your discussion with James, or you're actually mistakenly trying to paraphrase source material you don't understand. ''

oh... mmm... you're referring to the time I said about physics having ''something to say about perpendicular and orthogonality.''

I was right. I just never specified it was pointers it spoke about. My definitions where correct though, whilst people like cpt Bork seemed to not even recognize this literature, saying I was making things up, or something along those effects.You think that's the only instance? This is just yet another example of you being stupid enough to lie to me about something I said to you! Seriously, that's stupid. I really, really hope you're knowingly doing this, that this is all a massive exercise in trolling, because the alternative is you really believe your own nonsense.

Hell, I even explicitly said your discussion with James. Remember how you were posting stuff about Hamiltonians and quantum field theory and trying to explain things to James, only for it to then transpire your were mistakenly parroting Susskind, right down to his dubious notation?

... and I will find the video. I have come to one that is close in nature to it, so it cannot be far. All I do is copy as I see it being taught. You cannot get more accurate than that.It doesn't mean you understand it. I can write Chinese if someone puts a Chinese newspaper in front of me, doesn't mean I understand it. My father used to have to give speeches in Welsh as part of his job, except he can't speak Welsh so colleagues would teach him how to say everything like a parrot. Heck, parrots can speak English but do they understand it? Nope.

It's a form of plagiarism, passing off someone else's explanations as your own. You aren't formulating your own explanations using your own understanding, you just search for particular words to match and then to reproduce the relevant section. It's how laughably stupid chat bots work.

Funkstar was well out of his depth in coming in here foolishly as branding it as crap, as he clearly doesn't understand any of it. It's not clear whether he's saying the mathematics is bull or whether your attempts to present yourself as understanding it is bull. The latter is most definitely true, you don't understand this stuff. The fact you've had to hunt around for material to back you up, rather than just knowing a book its in demonstrates that.

No one believes your claim you understand this. Your repeated dishonest and misrepresentation of other people's explanations, other people's bookwork transcribed directly, is plagiarism. Your blanket parroting of Susskind is multiple instances of that. If you're spending 4 hours a day doing this stuff then you're wasting your life. 5 years of 4 hours a day is more work than most people who do a degree yet you couldn't pass an A Level exam!

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:27 PM

So you admit your excuse was completely invalid, you're aware it isn't a blanket statement? So why did you make it? Once again you clutch at straws and only admit your inaccuracies when you're called on them.

Progressively odd? Please explain how it is odd? I've outlined your mistakes and pointed out your dishonesty. You're the one repeatedly lying, knowingly, to people who openly say "We don't believe you". That would be 'progressively odd' if it were progressive. It just seems to be who you are.

As for being aggressive, I'm tired of your shit.

Then you have a terrible teacher.

You think that's the only instance? This is just yet another example of you being stupid enough to lie to me about something I said to you! Seriously, that's stupid. I really, really hope you're knowingly doing this, that this is all a massive exercise in trolling, because the alternative is you really believe your own nonsense.

Hell, I even explicitly said your discussion with James. Remember how you were posting stuff about Hamiltonians and quantum field theory and trying to explain things to James, only for it to then transpire your were mistakenly parroting Susskind, right down to his dubious notation?

It doesn't mean you understand it. I can write Chinese if someone puts a Chinese newspaper in front of me, doesn't mean I understand it. My father used to have to give speeches in Welsh as part of his job, except he can't speak Welsh so colleagues would teach him how to say everything like a parrot. Heck, parrots can speak English but do they understand it? Nope.

It's a form of plagiarism, passing off someone else's explanations as your own. You aren't formulating your own explanations using your own understanding, you just search for particular words to match and then to reproduce the relevant section. It's how laughably stupid chat bots work.

It's not clear whether he's saying the mathematics is bull or whether your attempts to present yourself as understanding it is bull. The latter is most definitely true, you don't understand this stuff. The fact you've had to hunt around for material to back you up, rather than just knowing a book its in demonstrates that.

No one believes your claim you understand this. Your repeated dishonest and misrepresentation of other people's explanations, other people's bookwork transcribed directly, is plagiarism. Your blanket parroting of Susskind is multiple instances of that. If you're spending 4 hours a day doing this stuff then you're wasting your life. 5 years of 4 hours a day is more work than most people who do a degree yet you couldn't pass an A Level exam!

Good, your tired of my shit and I'm tired of yours.

Can I take this as a card now to block you?

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:34 PM

I have only been studying classical physics and general relativity so far because Feynman said nobody understands quantum mechanics. Your equation is different than the one in the spin handout pdf you linked to.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/aqp/handout_spin.pdf

Can you explain all the terms in your equation in the quote to me? Pretend I am a time traveler from 1915, before the era of 1920's physics :D

Sure. The longer terms written out in that matrix are simply

n_1 - in_2 = n_{-}

n_1 + in_2 = n_{+}

And any subscripts like z or x or y purport to the spin directionality. Does this make sense now Khan?

AlphaNumeric

03-02-12, 06:35 PM

I'm tired of your* shit but I'm not going to sit idly by while you liar and plagiarise. If you really understand this stuff you'd be able to step up when I challenge you to show something or justify something. You never do, usually because the video you're plagiarising doesn't give the explanation, such as in the case of Susskind's comment about time independence of L=T-V implying T+V is time independent but he didn't prove it, which you parroted and couldn't explain.

If you don't like people slating you then you should be more honest. If you were asking questions about basic calculus and linear algebra I'd not have an issue. Instead you're proclaiming things about advanced topics. You failed James's challenge miserably, despite the questions being on subjects you should know inside out to do the stuff you spout crap about.

I can understand why you want to put me on block. Be reminded of your many short comings and obvious mistakes must get in the way of drinking your own koolaid.

* Note the difference between you're tired of my shit and I'm tired of yours. That's the second time you've gotten your/you're wrong in the last day or so. Your grammar is improving at the same rate as your physics.

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:43 PM

I'm tired of your* shit but I'm not going to sit idly by while you liar and plagiarise.

Don't worry AN.

You know, I actually love physics that much, it actually hurts when someone calls me a plaigarist of physics. If my ability to write about physics is really that SHIT, that I am having problems distinguishing my work from work which isn't mine, then I assure you, it is completely unintentional.

Just like when you said I plaigarised my tachyonic field equations. I didn't, in fact you brought it up again recently saying, ''but all you did was copy standard equation''.

WRONG

I actually made it clear from the very beginning of the post that those equations where extensions of Tsao Changs work on the Dirac Equation, thus I was carrying on the work to make a more complete theory... along with a theory on the Higgs Boson.

I also said to you that from now on I would make my equations well-known so there cannot be any confusion. Well, James gave me a brilliant idea when he started to show me what the difficulties where. I actually appreciated that a LOT MORE than simply banning me. From now on, I am just going to post a list of equations every time I make a thread like that (specifying) which equations are EXACTLY mine.

That should shut your cake hole in the future, especially if you are feeling so strong about this, that you cannot help yourself but involve yourself in my threads.

Now can I block you?

Reiku

03-02-12, 06:46 PM

And fuck my grammar. I just woke up.

Reiku

03-02-12, 07:02 PM

such as in the case of Susskind's comment about time independence of L=T-V implying T+V is time independent but he didn't prove it, which you parroted and couldn't explain....

So? It would have been catagorically worse if I had got it wrong. There loads of things in physics I have ''heard'' about but never in practice worked out. Plenty.

And if you sit there and you're not the same,you'd be a liar, for sure.

James R

03-02-12, 10:50 PM

Reiku:

I'm confused.

What use is any of your "work" in this thread?

In other words, what problem are you solving here? Is this work novel? Does it address an outstanding problem in physics? Or does it dispute existing ideas?

Could you please explain exactly where the work in this thread departs from the work of others, and why it is significant?

Thanks.

Reiku

03-02-12, 11:40 PM

Reiku:

I'm confused.

What use is any of your "work" in this thread?

My idea's are usually well beyond what I have constructed mathematically. Their uses can be explained in a non-trivial sense... which I will get to in a moment.

In other words, what problem are you solving here? Is this work novel? Does it address an outstanding problem in physics? Or does it dispute existing ideas?

Only one idea I propose goes against existing belief, is that particles are truely pointlike systems. I make it clear to the reader late on in the OP that I want to address the idea that there is in fact, dimensions to a particle. I give some reasons why this should be an approach, even giving a conjecture that maybe there is a special limit on what we can get from current theoretical approaches - such as the question, ''why do particles seem like that behave like they are pointlike?''

Usually it is taken as a priori of fact that particles are pointlike. Perhaps particles are never quite pointlike but they may behave as though they are pointlike simply because they are so small. As I mentioned in the OP, it puts me in mind of the Weyl Limit which can treat Neutrino's as a massless particle - we don't obviously believe that neutrino's are in fact massless, but they have such a small mass they may as well act like Bosons. So in the same sense, I say that perhaps particles of any family are not dimensionless, but because they must be close to it, they more or less act like pointlike particles.

If you want, that was my verbal addressing towards a problem in physics.

The force equation

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

= (-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 \mathbb{I}

= F_{ij}^{2}

Has a number of uses. Not once in physics literature have I found an equation which describes specifically the force in two distinct ways. In this equation, the force equation has a part:

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} [***]

which can describe the force (an exchange of a photon for instance, or a coupling of some external field due to spin-spin coupling which only would become apparent when the spin form \hat{n} \cdot \sigma is involved), between two particles. For instance r_{ij} measures the distance, so the force part denoted with [***] could describe a ''force exchange'' between two particles seperated by the same distance. At large distances the equation becomes invalid - So it is a good equation to locally approximate any force exchange. In a conventional approach, we may measure the distance in a unit vector, given as \hat{n}. As soon as we allow the spin to enter the equation,

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2

then the force is not only the ''connection'' between two particles at any two given locations, it also describes the force then along a specific directionality (along the axis of spin). As soon as a force interactions between the two particles this proportionally changes or dynamically influences the forces along a specific spin directionality.

I have never seen a ''force along a spin axis'' proposal in physics before. Usually when force is considered with spin, it is usually around as axis, or the forces resultant.

Of course, it also measures the magnetic moment in these equations, actually, it eventually described the gyromagnetic ratio for that spin as well, which is not a new approach, but applying it in the way I have, is, as far as I am aware.

Could you please explain exactly where the work in this thread departs from the work of others, and why it is significant?

It can be significant because for the first time I think for a local proximity between particles we could in principle measure spin-spin external field couplings and measure their effects for a particle moving along an axis of a specific directionality. It may for instance, have a profound effect as to change the direction of spin, if you have a force which is strong enough between the two particles.

Thanks.

No probs.

Reiku

03-02-12, 11:46 PM

Or at large distances, the equation does not so much become invalid, but there is no interaction between the distance of the particles r_{ij} so the dominant force is the force-spin along an axis.

Reiku

03-03-12, 12:01 AM

In fact, I am well on my way for some new derivations. I have found out within the last couple of hours there are distinct ways of treating the equations in terms of the magnetic field.

James R

03-03-12, 12:03 AM

Reiku:

Usually it is taken as a priori of fact that particles are pointlike.

What kinds of particles? For example, particles like protons and neutrons are very much taken NOT to be pointlike.

As I mentioned in the OP, it puts me in mind of the Weyl Limit which can treat Neutrino's as a massless particle - we don't obviously believe that neutrino's are in fact massless, but they have such a small mass they may as well act like Bosons.

What has being a boson got to do with mass? Aren't they independent?

The force equation

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

= (-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 \mathbb{I}

= F_{ij}^{2}

Has a number of uses. Not once in physics literature have I found an equation which describes specifically the force in two distinct ways. In this equation, the force equation has a part:

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} [***]

which can describe the force (an exchange of a photon for instance, or a coupling of some external field due to spin-spin coupling which only would become apparent when the spin form \hat{n} \cdot \sigma is involved), between two particles. For instance r_{ij} measures the distance, so the force part denoted with [***] could describe a ''force exchange'' between two particles seperated by the same distance. At large distances the equation becomes invalid - So it is a good equation to locally approximate any force exchange. In a conventional approach, we may measure the distance in a unit vector, given as \hat{n}. As soon as we allow the spin to enter the equation,

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2

then the force is not only the ''connection'' between two particles at any two given locations, it also describes the force then along a specific directionality (along the axis of spin). As soon as a force interactions between the two particles this proportionally changes or dynamically influences the forces along a specific spin directionality.

I have never seen a ''force along a spin axis'' proposal in physics before. Usually when force is considered with spin, it is usually around as axis, or the forces resultant.

Of course, it also measures the magnetic moment in these equations, actually, it eventually described the gyromagnetic ratio for that spin as well, which is not a new approach, but applying it in the way I have, is, as far as I am aware.

I asked you to explain why this stuff is useful - i.e. what it is good for - not for more maths.

It can be significant because for the first time I think for a local proximity between particles we could in principle measure spin-spin external field couplings and measure their effects for a particle moving along an axis of a specific directionality.

Why would that be useful? Why would we want to do that?

It may for instance, have a profound effect as to change the direction of spin, if you have a force which is strong enough between the two particles.

And this is significant because... ?

Reiku

03-03-12, 12:25 AM

Reiku:

What kinds of particles? For example, particles like protons and neutrons are very much taken NOT to be pointlike.

An electron, for instance. That is what I had in mind anyway in the OP since I defined the classical electron radius \frac{e^2}{2mc^2}.

I asked you to explain why this stuff is useful - i.e. what it is good for - not for more maths.

It helps us describe the forces on a particle along an axis but also simultaneously how those forces are effect between the particles (such as an exchange particle).

[QUOTE=James R;2911334]Why would that be useful? Why would we want to do that?

Well I've just had a massive realization on my equation not long ago. I am not going to get into great detail, but I can write my equation in terms of an interaction energy called the Larmor Energy. Before this though, it could help explain anomalous interactions we did not take into account simultaneously.

And this is significant because... ?

I guess importance is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose it is significant for very detailed analysis of particle-spin behaviours.

Reiku

03-03-12, 12:41 AM

I have in the last few hours came across what is called the Larmor interaction energy. It's appearance is similar to this force equation:

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

In fact it is very similar, par a few differences:

\Delta H_L = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2} \frac{\partial U (r)}{\partial r} L \cdot S

Instead the interaction part

\frac{\partial U (r)}{\partial r}

has the potential written with a U instead of V and the distances are not taking into question any other particles, just lone electrons by themselves. Already, I may provide the Larmor Energy with a new detailed description, I will call the Modified Larmor Energy. To do this, one must know the more compact form of the Larmor Energy is

-\mu \cdot B

This negative will cancel due to negative found in my equation when applied in motion. Thus to get the Larmor Energy in a form from

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

We must see the

\frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2} (L \cdot S) and exchange it for the understanding that the spin operations here:

\mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})

in my original equation can be plugged in for the Larmor spin part. The magnetic moment part is replaced with

\frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2}

Thus our final equation has the form

\Delta H_L = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2} \frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} L \cdot S = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar m e c^2}\frac{\partial V (r_{ij})}{\partial r_{ij}} \frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{J}^2 - \mathbf{L}^2 - \mathbf{S}^2)

So due to the very similar nature of my equation and the Larmor Energy, one can easily derive the results for the Larmor Energy by a few simple mathematical gestures.

khan

03-03-12, 12:43 AM

Sure. The longer terms written out in that matrix are simply

n_1 - in_2 = n_{-}

n_1 + in_2 = n_{+}

And any subscripts like z or x or y purport to the spin directionality. Does this make sense now Khan?

That helps some.

Leonard Susskind QM lectures

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL84C10A9CB1D13841

I don't plan on seriously studying these QM lectures yet, not until I have successfully absorbed all the classic physics. I watched the Susskind GR lectures up through lecture 11. Some of the GR lectures I watched twice, took notes, and researched GR books. I can't say that I am proficient in GR but I have learned enough to understand the hard work Einstein must have put into it.

Reiku, you appear to have learned some good physics but there seem to be gaps in your knowledge. Using the "infinite monkey theorem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) approach to deriving a revolutionary new theory might be extremely improbable... :shrug:

Reiku

03-03-12, 12:50 AM

That helps some.

Leonard Susskind QM lectures

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL84C10A9CB1D13841

I don't plan on seriously studying these QM lectures yet, not until I have successfully absorbed all the classic physics. I watched the Susskind GR lectures up through lecture 11. Some of the GR lectures I watched twice, took notes, and researched GR books. I can't say that I am proficient in GR but I have learned enough to understand the hard work Einstein must have put into it.

Reiku, you appear to have learned some good physics but there seem to be gaps in your knowledge. Using the "infinite monkey theorem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) approach to deriving a revolutionary new theory might be extremely improbable... :shrug:

hahaha :D

I never quite thought of it like that. Well... I have always wanted to go to university to take this further... but I simply

A) Don't have the money
B) And extremely pressed with time at the mo

So all I have done the last 2-3 years is teach myself vigorously from of course, Susskind lectures... (did all those classical ones... you'll enjoy ''new revelations in particle physics'' that was very eye-opening). Emmm... and a few other vids, books, generally anything I could work with and eventually the more I learned, the more I could move onto harder physics, a bit like what you are doing. There are of course, still holes there which I am planning to fix. Sometimes the relevant information is never there easily to be grasped or if it is, no one is there to take you through it half the time.

James R

03-03-12, 01:00 AM

Reiku:

Well I've just had a massive realization on my equation not long ago. I am not going to get into great detail, but I can write my equation in terms of an interaction energy called the Larmor Energy. Before this though, it could help explain anomalous interactions we did not take into account simultaneously.

Which anomalous interactions?

Reiku

03-03-12, 01:06 AM

Reiku:

Which anomalous interactions?

It is known, that no equation can fully describe a system 100%... so we may believe then that we can only modify certain equations to suit a more detailed and more accurate picture of some interaction of systems.

So anything which is not (catagorized within) that percentage of accuracy remain unnaccounted for. So we may use my equation for instance, to fill in those percentage gaps, such as the motion of any particles which cannot be described in any terms alone of a force along an axis, but also those effects taking into account of interactions between particles.

James R

03-03-12, 01:16 AM

It is known, that no equation can fully describe a system 100%...

Known by whom? Surely certain systems can be fully described by an equation - especially simple ones.

so we may believe then that we can only modify certain equations to suit a more detailed and more accurate picture of some interaction of systems.

So, how about you answer the question I asked: which "anomalous interactions we did not take into account simultaneously" does your work in this thread help to explain?

Which particular systems are you talking about? Which particular anamalous interactions? And how does your work help sort out the problem?

So we may use my equation for instance, to fill in those percentage gaps, such as the motion of any particles which cannot be described in any terms alone of a force along an axis, but also those effects taking into account of interactions between particles.

Can you please give me an example of a particle that cannot be described in any terms alone of a force along an axis?

Reiku

03-03-12, 01:33 AM

Known by whom? Surely certain systems can be fully described by an equation - especially simple ones.?

Right, you are correct. Sorry, I don't mean like simple equations which in theory might describe a classical motion for instance. I mean purely quantum mechanical - for instance, I watched a program recently on the Dirac Equation where the presenter said,

''Dirac created an equation which described electrons to almost near accuracy.''

We actually have no other equation which can describe fermions any more accurate, but it does show that perhaps certain equations can never fully describe a system 100 percent due to error.

These errors are made up with new interactions. Most of these interactions will be external thermal background noises. One such case given by my equation, describes how two particle maybe very close, then the force (as describes between two particles) is not only the ''connection'' (or force) between two particles at any two given locations, it also describes the force then along a specific directionality (along the axis of spin). As soon as a force interactions between the two particles this proportionally changes or dynamically influences the forces along a specific spin directionality. On one particle, the background interference is the quantum effects from the local particle which may be accounted for.

So, how about you answer the question I asked: which "anomalous interactions we did not take into account simultaneously" does your work in this thread help to explain?

Which particular systems are you talking about? Which particular anamalous interactions? And how does your work help sort out the problem??

Not all quantum motions can be vigourously tested and measured, due to the Uncertainty Principle in technical terms, which you yourself know all about.

But in theory we can test it to a degree, but suppose that a particle (in a system of particles) moved along a specific trajectory but showed a small anomalous movement which was not accounted for. One such approach might be the effects from the surrounding bath, from other particles in the phase space. So my equations approach is an application [at least in theory] which may account for forces when we need to calculate them.

Can you please give me an example of a particle that cannot be described in any terms alone of a force along an axis?

Yeh, zero spin particles. They may have a force in a particular direction but not along any spin axis.

funkstar

03-03-12, 02:19 AM

Yes, crap.

The rest was my realizations.
You mean gems like this, I suppose:

= \begin{bmatrix}\ \sqrt{\frac{1+n_3}{2}} \\ \frac{1-n_3}{n_{-}} \sqrt{\frac{1 + n_3}{2} \end{bmatrix}

which gives

= \frac{2}{1+n_{3}}

which is an automatical fail in linear algebra. Can you see why?

Reiku

03-03-12, 02:30 AM

You do realize there where many parts of that removed to save latex time?

Or did you not read it either?

Reiku

03-03-12, 02:31 AM

I still don't care what you have to say. The derivation is irrelevant and pointless really. All you need to know is that the final result is viable.

You just went out your way to cause trouble for me, as usual. It's obvious.

Reiku

03-03-12, 02:42 AM

I shake my head and go

DOH!

I think I now remember the video this was extracted from... I have watched all his video's and the one lot I think it has tangential relevance to was his quantum entanglement courses...

:rolleyes:

Reiku

03-03-12, 02:47 AM

There. Finally!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vfo512fvlE&feature=relmfu

You may see the FULL derivation which I skipped a bit of.

AlphaNumeric

03-03-12, 04:21 PM

Don't worry AN.

You know, I actually love physics that much, it actually hurts when someone calls me a plaigarist of physics. If my ability to write about physics is really that SHIT, that I am having problems distinguishing my work from work which isn't mine, then I assure you, it is completely unintentional.You don't love physics, not in the good honest wholesome sense. Your behaviour implies you realise there's a certain amount of prestige or positive implication about being competent at physics/mathematics on forums like this and you wish to be seen in a good light on such matters.

If you were really in it for the physics you'd be making an effort to actually learn physics, rather than parrot back expressions you don't understand. It's almost a matter of respect for physics (though physics isn't a singular thing like a person) or rather your lack of respect for it. You aren't interested in scientific understanding or investigation, you just want to be seen to be doing something complicated.

Your actions smack of an insecurity about yourself. And before you wheel out the "Oh so you're a PhD in psychology now are you?!" I'm giving my views based on my experiences interacting with people, both inside and outside of the scientific community. Perhaps if you'd actually attempted to go to university to do a science and had a trial by fire you'd have become much more comfortable (and realistic) about yourself but you haven't.

Just like when you said I plaigarised my tachyonic field equations. I didn't, in fact you brought it up again recently saying, ''but all you did was copy standard equation''.

WRONG

I actually made it clear from the very beginning of the post that those equations where extensions of Tsao Changs work on the Dirac Equation, thus I was carrying on the work to make a more complete theory... along with a theory on the Higgs Boson.You're obviously not paying any attention to what I write. I often wonder if you bother to read the posts of mine you quote, you rarely seem to pick up salient points I make.

For example, my "You plagiarised that stuff about neutrinos/tachyons" comments I explained differently to how you represent it. You obviously don't know spinor quantum field theory. You obviously don't know stuff required 4 years before university students get to quantum field theory. As such whenever you post such material you're parroting other people, mindlessly. That is plagiarism, as it is trying to present yourself as knowledgeable by presenting things you don't understand and are mindlessly parroting. Shuffling around the equations doesn't change that. I could pick out random words from a Chinese/English translation dictionary and form 'sentences' but it would be ridiculous for me to claim I can speak Chinese simply because no one explicitly told me those sentences.

There's more to "This is my own novel work" than "No one else has ever said this". It has to be something you understand, something you put together using reason and logic, not random permutations of equations you've found by Google searching for particular buzzwords.

Part of the reason people think so poorly of you is you fail to grasp this rather basic concept.

I also said to you that from now on I would make my equations well-known so there cannot be any confusion.As above.

That should shut your cake hole in the future, especially if you are feeling so strong about this, that you cannot help yourself but involve yourself in my threads.That wouldn't negate what I just said. You would still be mangling together expressions you don't understand in ways which are meaningless because you don't understand how to combine expressions you read, if they can even be combined.

And fuck my grammar. I just woke up. Your spelling and grammar are always extremely poor. They have been like that for years. Despite being told many many times you don't bother to even get a web browser with a spell check built into it. Actually, they all have spell checkers now. Turn it on!

So? It would have been catagorically worse if I had got it wrong. There loads of things in physics I have ''heard'' about but never in practice worked out. Plenty.
Except that the proof is a very simple one which anyone covering Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics learns. You have made many posts talking about Lagrangians and Hamiltonians and their associated equations. They are both used everywhere in quantum field theory and general relativity. In fact the proof that \partial_{t}(T-V) = 0 \rightarrow \partial_{t}(T+V) = 0 is little more than an application of those equations.

You've just shown, again, that you don't know basic quantum field theory/general relativity. The manner in which you get the Dirac equation or the Einstein field equations is an application of precisely the same method! You cannot say all the "I understand all that about quantum field theory" or "I'm familiar with that in general relativity" you spew yet turn around and say what you just said. It's like claiming you understand multiplication but then say "Addition? What's that?".

You're always doing this. You don't understand which bits of mathematics/physics build on which so you'll say "Well I don't know everything! X is something I haven't learnt about!" right after saying "Of course I understand Y! Look, here's some work on it!", not realising understanding of Y is impossible without understanding of X. It's like how you like to talk about spinor wave equations but you couldn't even understand a solution to simple harmonic motion!

Time and again you get caught in your own web of lies.

Usually it is taken as a priori of fact that particles are pointlike. Perhaps particles are never quite pointlike but they may behave as though they are pointlike simply because they are so small. As I mentioned in the OP, it puts me in mind of the Weyl Limit which can treat Neutrino's as a massless particle - we don't obviously believe that neutrino's are in fact massless, but they have such a small mass they may as well act like Bosons. So in the same sense, I say that perhaps particles of any family are not dimensionless, but because they must be close to it, they more or less act like pointlike particles.
Nothing you've said has any bearing on the size of particles. Furthermore a particles mass has no bearing on it being a boson or not. Massless fermions are fine, as are massive bosons. Again, another little nugget of evidence you don't grasp even simple concepts.

If you want, that was my verbal addressing towards a problem in physics.

The force equation

-\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \mu(\hat{n} \cdot \vec{\sigma}_{ij})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}} \begin{bmatrix}\ \mu(n_3) & \mu(n_{-}) \\ \mu(n_{+}) & \mu(-n_3) \end{bmatrix}^2

= (-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 \mathbb{I}

= F_{ij}^{2}

Has a number of uses.It has no uses because it's nonsense. The matrix bit is irrelevant, you're just stating a well known identity. The other bit though is where the flaw lies. You say that

(-\frac{\partial V(r_ij)}{\partial r_{ij}})^2 = -\frac{\partial^2 V^2 (r_{ij})^2}{\partial^2 r^{2}_{ij}}

That is obviously false. \partial^{2}A^{2} is not the same as (\partial A)^{2}. The first is the second derivative of A^{2} while the second is the square of the first derivative of A. In fact the latter expression just has too many squared's in it at all. It's like you know you're supposed to put some 2's somewhere, you just don't know where so you put it everywhere.

Not once in physics literature have I found an equation which describes specifically the force in two distinct ways
Except you don't describe it in two distinct ways, unless you think 2^{2} and 4 count as two distinct numbers? All you do is manipulate the matrices using well known identities. You haven't shown two seemingly unrelated quantities are related, you've just rearranged, incorrectly, a very basic expression.

Also, it's pretty daft of you to say "Not once in the literature have I found..." since you don't understand the literature so you wouldn't know such an occurrence if it snuck up behind you and gave you a prostate check.

In a conventional approach, we may measure the distance in a unit vector, given as \hat{n}. As soon as we allow the spin to enter the equation,
The unit vector in the expressions you give is not to do with the line joining two particles together. It is representing the direction of a spin alignment, which is a different concept. This is what happens when you stumble about in equations you don't understand, you think "I've seen unit vectors before, they are to do with difference between positions. It must be to do with that!" and then it turns out to be wrong.

I have never seen a ''force along a spin axis'' proposal in physics before. Usually when force is considered with spin, it is usually around as axis, or the forces resultant.You should read more.

Of course, it also measures the magnetic moment in these equations, actually, it eventually described the gyromagnetic ratio for that spin as well, which is not a new approach, but applying it in the way I have, is, as far as I am aware.
You haven't applied anything, you've hardly done anything at all. Even if your result were valid and not nonsense you've failed to show any derivation. You get your information from lecture courses, where much of the details and derivations are skipped over, left for the students to read in textbooks. Someone presenting a new result has to lay out every single step in a clear and precise manner. A new result claiming to do what you claim your result does would be in a paper pages and pages in length. Papers under 5 pages on topics like this are eye brow raisingly short. The sum total of the non-defining notation stuff you've done is probably under a page. Not to mention you always use mathematics almost remedial in its complexity. Sure, you talk about spin matrices etc but all you ever do with them is multiply or add. Your level of innumeracy prevents you even making up interesting or elaborate mathematical nonsense. The best you can manage is to parrot some definitions in bra-ket notation.

I guess importance is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose it is significant for very detailed analysis of particle-spin behaviours.
I really hope you don't believe what you're posting. You're detached from reality if you do.

A) Don't have the money
B) And extremely pressed with time at the mo In Scotland it's free, the amount it costs you to live right now is the amount it'll cost to go to university. And what is taking up so much of your time? You said you have 4 hours a day to work on this stuff.

But maybe you're just making excuses for yourself, since in reality a good university like Edinburgh would never let you in.

You just went out your way to cause trouble for me, as usual. It's obvious.He spent 2 minutes going out of his way to point out a mistake you made, thus demonstrating criticisms of you are not without reason. You've gone 2~5 years out of your way to accomplish nothing but be exposed as a liar.

Go you.

So all I have done the last 2-3 years is teach myself vigorously from of course, Susskind lectures... (did all those classical ones... you'll enjoy ''new revelations in particle physics'' that was very eye-opening). Emmm... and a few other vids, books, generally anything I could work with and eventually the more I learned, the more I could move onto harder physics, a bit like what you are doing. There are of course, still holes there which I am planning to fix. Sometimes the relevant information is never there easily to be grasped or if it is, no one is there to take you through it half the time.And every single person here who actually has gone to university to do a science thinks you're deluding yourself and terrible at all of it.

Well done, you've squandered 2~5 years of your life. Go you.