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

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/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:quant-ph/0501072

Motz ''On the quantization of mass''

Sciarma ''On the Origin of Inertia''

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Have you thought about seeking psychiatric help?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

Oh so your PhD is in psychology now. Interesting.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

''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.

 

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.