# Trading in the Real Space for Real Time

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Green Destiny, Nov 7, 2010.

1. ### alephnullyou can count on meRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
147
If the notation, which is obvious to anyone who as ever so much as looked at basic linear algebra in any detail, wasn't immediately apparent to you, then a simple exercise in multiplying an N dimensional vector by an NxN matrix and comparing components would have deciphered this mysterious notation for you.

You do know how to pre-multiply a vector by a matrix right?

3. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
I don't know, sometimes I don't link words to the math, I am bad for that. Like recently, I never linked an ideal gas to the equations propositions, another story. Now that you pointed it out, it is clear.

5. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
By the way, if you read back, I had suspected that. I think that is why he never answered me. Who knows.

7. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
It is such a trivial thing, which you should be familiar with from just about any area of mathematical physics (matrices, vectors, fluid mechanics, Hilbert spaces, quantum mechanics in general) that it shouldn't need to be explained.

Its just another example of how you want people to think you can do the difficult stuff when you can't even do the stuff covered in the first term of first year of any basic physics degree. You simply cannot get to understand stuff like the Dirac equation when you can't do this stuff.

I didn't reply because pointing out your inconsistencies and lies makes me sound like a broken record. Best to assume that if I don't reply to something its because you've made such a massive cock up that its painfully embarrassing for you but you just don't realise it.

8. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
You're worried of sounding like a broken record? Fucking pull the other one hahahaha that is so funny lol

When, OMG, has it ever bothered you before? You constantly repeat yourself, and the best bit is, I just have to sit back and watch. You write all these long posts off your own back, you are wasting your own time, don't worry about anyone elses.

Oh and by the way, I am not going anywhere, so trying to tell me to sod off aint going to work. So what is the next method? What diabolical plan have you got in store?

9. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
Yes it would be to someone like you who used math on a daily basis, just finishing your PhD recently... and also for alephnull who I beleive is a mathematics student.

Yes, these statements are all so very valid and applicable to your daily lifes. Ever stop to realize this is not the reality of the lives of the people you meet? Credit where credit is due sometimes... atleast I did have an incline which you shoved off without thought or confirmation.

10. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
Fortunately the total of my scientific work isn't the sum of my forum posts. I might 'waste' 15 minutes typing a long reply, you've wasted days, weeks, months (and I wouldn't be surprised if its years) doing this crap. When I said recently I'd spent time learning fluid mechanics I meant it, I've now got a working understanding of certain areas, which I'm putting to use. When you say you've been 'investigating' the Dirac equation you've not learnt anything usable, you don't even know basic things about it. The time I spend doing science isn't wasted, yours clearly is. Forums are entertainment for me, like other forms of entertainment spending time doing it isn't 'wasted' in the sense your time 'investigating' the Dirac equation was.

My point was that people in the past have been banned for behaviour you display, the mods aren't infinitely patient in that regard.

No, its covered in introductory courses in quantum mechanics. If you've been 'investigating the Dirac equation' and are familiar with Dirac notation (as you claim to be here) then you should have come across this. For instance $H_{ij} = \langle i |H|j\rangle$ is the definition of the matrix components of the Hamiltonian (or any operator). That's covered in the same section as basic Dirac notation. And using indices is covered in a basic course on vectors, which you should also be familiar with if you've been looking at vorticity in fluid mechanics since its all written in index notation.

You fail to realise that the things you say "Well I don't know that, mummy and daddy didn't pay for university for me" about are required knowledge for things you profess to have understood or be familiar with. You can't simultaneously claim to be familiar with Dirac notation, the Dirac equation etc and yet not know the meaning of things which are used to describe the Dirac equation or which are written via Dirac notation.

This is why I (and others) think you're being deceptive and a fraud.

11. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
Fortunately the total of my scientific work isn't the sum of my forum posts. I might 'waste' 15 minutes typing a long reply, you've wasted days, weeks, months (and I wouldn't be surprised if its years) doing this crap.

Based on what evidence? I have been here for no more than 3 months... surely? I have learned a lot here, but not from you. I've learned some things, but as I said in the other thread, that is not your primary goal.

My point was that people in the past have been banned for behaviour you display, the mods aren't infinitely patient in that regard.

And what reason is that again? My behaviour is not disruptive, I don't give out false ideologies when it counts, and I don't intentionally mislead people when I am put on the spotlight. I don't see what possible reason I could get banned for, other than for you desperately seeking for it to happen.

No, its covered in introductory courses in quantum mechanics. If you've been 'investigating the Dirac equation' and are familiar with Dirac notation (as you claim to be here) then you should have come across this.

You are so disingenuous it is compelling. That statement truely depends on the sources I have learned about the Dirac Equation from. And when I said I was learning about it, I meant the Standard Form, you tit.

You can't simultaneously claim to be familiar with Dirac notation, the Dirac equation etc and yet not know the meaning of things which are used to describe the Dirac equation or which are written via Dirac notation.

Why oh why are you on this speil now? Of all times? Are you now trying to find a new looking tower in which to shout your unsubstantiated claims from? I have used Dirac Notation plenty of times here at the forum. I think you better find something you can actually find a hole in. Just another desperate attempt not to sound like a broken record.

This is why I (and others) think you're being deceptive and a fraud

Disingenuous again. Fraud is not the correct word to use for me? What have I frauded about? Learn what the word means before you go spouting it off. I am A VERY truthful person, so I don't understand why you where saying that.

12. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
So is the d^4 notation, but I never saw you act like this with quark-big-head.

13. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
If you've been 'investigating' the Dirac equation but can't write a linear combination of vectors that's evidence enough.

Putting forth pet theories as actual science or wasting people's time with questions whose answers you cannot understand is disruptive.

Anyway, I am not speaking for the mods but simply pointing out previous people have been banned for similar things.

Yes, but any good source, learnt properly, will make use of simpler things, since science builds on itself. You can't do the Dirac equation without understanding of spinors and vectors, which you don't. Hence all your 'investigation' is restricted to superficial things, reading the wordy explanations others who do understand the maths have provided you. That gives you a bit of an insight into the physics but it doesn't give you anything workable.

You've not shown you can work with it. All you've done is provide definitions which can be found anywhere. The one time you attempted to do quantum mechanics, the thing about entangled quartets of particles, you demonstrated you don't even understand linear combinations.

If you did understand Dirac notation and vectors you'd have understood what I said. Instead you had to ask several times.

Your claims about understanding pretty much anything have all been undermined or completely refuted by other things you've said.

But I believe he's honestly making an effort and he's shown understanding, working understanding, of plenty of things. When he discusses such things he doesn't do what you do, which is just quote definitions and link to wordy explanations, he shows a working understanding and engages in detailed discussion. Your threads always lack that and whenever someone presses you for a more in depth discussion you never step up.

Cranks here are fond of the Einstein quote "If you can't explain it to your grandmother then you don't understand it." Its possible to demonstrate deep understanding without having to go nuts with the mathematics and its a lot harder to fake because you're required to show you under the maths, can relate things to one another and then form a coherent narrative about it all. People like Rpenner don't have a PhD in physics but he clearly understands a fair amount and I have no reason to jump down his throat when he talks about high level stuff. I do not get the same feeling with you. And it appears I'm not the only one.

14. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
You talking about when I wrote the matrices? That isn't fair. I forgot to put the addition signs in. Thankfully I have evidence that I knew better, one of my first posts here was exactly of that form, and written perfectly.

15. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211
But I believe he's honestly making an effort and he's shown understanding, working understanding, of plenty of things.

But that is not fair either; You have only just surcomed to the idea of trying to teach me something in the other thread. There is no way you can compare us until you try. I can't promise I will be a whizz like him, hes had extensively more mathematical training, but atleast I posses the will, if not more.

Now I really do have to go.

16. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,734
Now, now, abuse of names is really REALLY childish.

And for your information, this notation is not unique to quantum mechanics, it is a standard mathematical shorthand, much beloved by physicists in general. If, as a non-physicist, I had never encountered it before, does this make me a bad person? And if I dislike it, does that make me worse?

Do you know for what it is shorthand? Does it make any sense outside the integral? What integral? I asked you this once before and got no response. Try now, if you would be so kind......

And BTW, it seems there is a forum rule against "mutating" members' names in a derogatory fashion. Not that I care over-much for "rules" of any sort, but you might want to take it on board nonetheless

17. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
You couldn't work out if they were linearly independent. You hadn't heard of the Pauli matrices. Your lengthy post on entanglement doesn't have anything to do with entanglement, your conclusion was nothing but a definition of something else. You wrote the post in the style of "Here's the rigorous justification for what I've claimed about the Dirac equation and entanglement" and yet it was littered with errors which suggested you'd not even understood what either of those things involve.

If you think I'm wrong in my assessment please point to where in said post (I'm sure you can find it yourself) you do anything to do with entanglement. If you want a more specific task then explain why your final equation has anything to do with entanglement. It doesn't and if you fail to explain why then I'll explain it to you. Consider it an explicit example of how you try to maintain the appearance of "I clearly understand this stuff" and will continue to do so until someone points out you obviously don't. If I'd not said anything I'm sure you'd not have come along and said "Opps, I made the following mistakes....", as evidenced by your "I'll assume you accept everything else since you didn't respond to it" comments (which you've done more than once), at which point I pointed out more errors.

Its hardly succumbing, I'm removing any excuse you have along the lines of "Oh you just won't even give me a chance!". I have previously offered to have an honest discussion with you on entanglement, so you could demonstrate you understand the stuff. I even offered to be banned for a week if I was overly rude. You didn't take me up on it.

You've had plenty of chances. I've offered to discuss things nicely if you'll be honest. I've given you plenty of chances to go through a lengthy post you've made and highlight any errors you might see, rather than being torn apart again.

Like I've said before, if you gave the impression you were not biting off more than you can chew I'd not need to 'succumb', I'd help automatically.

There's only so far having little to no maths understanding will get you and that place is a long long way short of quantum mechanics, the Dirac equation, Hamiltonians and fluid vorticity. Hence why your various threads and comments seem to contradict one another. How did you get to 'investigating' the Dirac equation and entanglement if you're not familiar with vectors, linear algebra and variational principles? The only conclusion is you didn't, you've just read wordy explanations and that's a long way short of being able to do said areas. I'd read a great deal of pop science books on quantum mechanics before I went to university but they provided zero help in actually doing quantum mechanics, it only gave the equations a context in terms of applicability, which is a million miles from understanding and working with the equations themselves.

To give a simpler analogy, listening to a song and learning its lyrics doesn't make you a good song writer.

18. ### Green DestinyBannedBanned

Messages:
1,211

I'm not getting into this with you when I am about to have a civil discussion with you. One thing though, I never said I had not heard of a pauli matrices. I am quite aware of them. I said I don't know how to work with them. I have never taught myself.

Big difference.